Not sure why you have to read 3/4 of the article to get to a _link_ to a pdf which _only_ has the _abstract_ of the actual paper:
N. Benjamin Murphy and Kenneth M. Golden* (golden@math.utah.edu), University of
Utah, Department of Mathematics, 155 S 1400 E, Rm. 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090.
Random Matrices, Spectral Measures, and Composite Media.
In this lecture we will discuss computations of the spectral measures of this operator which yield effective transport properties, as well as statistical measures of its eigenvalues.
If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3
> The pattern was first discovered in nature in the 1950s in the energy spectrum of the uranium nucleus, a behemoth with hundreds of moving parts that quivers and stretches in infinitely many ways, producing an endless sequence of energy levels. In 1972, the number theorist Hugh Montgomery observed it in the zeros of the Riemann zeta function(opens a new tab), a mathematical object closely related to the distribution of prime numbers. In 2000, Krbálek and Šeba reported it in the Cuernavaca bus system(opens a new tab). And in recent years it has shown up in spectral measurements of composite materials, such as sea ice and human bones, and in signal dynamics of the Erdös–Rényi model(opens a new tab), a simplified version of the Internet named for Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi.
Are they also cranks? Seems it at least warrants investigation.
It's not that a random shuffling of songs doesn't sound random enough, it's that certain reasonable requirements besides randomness don't hold. For example, you'd not want hear the same track twice in a row, even though this is bound to happen in a strictly random shuffling.
Random shuffling of songs usually refers to a randomized ordering of a given set of songs, so the same song can’t occur twice in a row if the set only contains unique items. People don’t usually mean an independent random selection from the set each time.
If the list of songs is random shuffled, you can only hear the same song twice if there is a duplicate or if you've cycled through the whole list. That's why you shuffle lists instead of randomly selecting list elements.
Not sure why you have to read 3/4 of the article to get to a _link_ to a pdf which _only_ has the _abstract_ of the actual paper:
N. Benjamin Murphy and Kenneth M. Golden* (golden@math.utah.edu), University of Utah, Department of Mathematics, 155 S 1400 E, Rm. 233, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090. Random Matrices, Spectral Measures, and Composite Media.
From the abstract:
In this lecture we will discuss computations of the spectral measures of this operator which yield effective transport properties, as well as statistical measures of its eigenvalues.
So a lecture and not a paper, sadly.
Maybe also heap fragmentation
The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related.
"How Physicists Approximate (Almost) Anything" (Physics Explained)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY
If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3
> The pattern was first discovered in nature in the 1950s in the energy spectrum of the uranium nucleus, a behemoth with hundreds of moving parts that quivers and stretches in infinitely many ways, producing an endless sequence of energy levels. In 1972, the number theorist Hugh Montgomery observed it in the zeros of the Riemann zeta function(opens a new tab), a mathematical object closely related to the distribution of prime numbers. In 2000, Krbálek and Šeba reported it in the Cuernavaca bus system(opens a new tab). And in recent years it has shown up in spectral measurements of composite materials, such as sea ice and human bones, and in signal dynamics of the Erdös–Rényi model(opens a new tab), a simplified version of the Internet named for Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi.
Are they also cranks? Seems it at least warrants investigation.
>Are they also cranks?
That is a better question. =3
What does “5 sigma precision equals 3” mean?
=3 is a cat face[1] smiley, the period preceding it ends the sentence.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons
lol =3
It was a serious question but I see I should not expect an answer.
not sure if you're joking but it's an emoticon:
=3
look at it like a sideways face of a cartoon cat, with 3 being the mouth shape
so their actual sentence ends at the period
Ok, I see it now. I thought the period was a typo and they were trying to write some sort of expression.
I still don’t understand why the emoticon is there or its purpose but whatever.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2013 But still cool
There is the well known problem that "random" shuffling of songs doesn't sound "random" to people and is disliked.
I wonder if the semi-random "universality" pattern they talk about in this article aligns more closely with what people want from song shuffling.
It's not that a random shuffling of songs doesn't sound random enough, it's that certain reasonable requirements besides randomness don't hold. For example, you'd not want hear the same track twice in a row, even though this is bound to happen in a strictly random shuffling.
Random shuffling of songs usually refers to a randomized ordering of a given set of songs, so the same song can’t occur twice in a row if the set only contains unique items. People don’t usually mean an independent random selection from the set each time.
If the list of songs is random shuffled, you can only hear the same song twice if there is a duplicate or if you've cycled through the whole list. That's why you shuffle lists instead of randomly selecting list elements.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11109248/
DNA as a perfect quantum computer based on the quantum physics principles.