Gostaria que fosse disponibilizada a legenda - se possível em Língua Portuguesa - do vídeo "Historical Capitalism: Money and Imagination. Grata, Professora Marta Diogo
Small error here. You have 6 batches of 3 after 5 snaps so 6x2= 12 + 5 = 17. Now if you really want a way out of this one we need to get more creative. Lets say the bar is arranged 2x9. We make 9 batches of 2 with 8 snaps. Now we stack the 2's 2 deep so that we have 4 stacks of 2 2's and one left over. Im pretty sure anyone could make a clean snap of the 2 2's into 4 so, 8 + 4 (for the stacks) + 1 (the leftover) = 13. If you take this new rule to its conclusion you could do it in 5. Maybe less?
@gbiota1 well, thats your problem, this isn't meant to be educational, this isn't meant to be science. This is a round table discussion, a meeting of mind and mingling of spontaneous idea's and views on a specific subject. For me and many people, that has as much value as a scientific presentation. In the past, philosophers were the ones frontiering science, now its the scientists philosophizing, sharing visions, idea's and ways of thinking, this is just as valuable in progressing science.
found this to be a waste of time, after 40 minutes i felt i could be certain this was just complete speculation on something genetics and neuroscience could answer with certainty, although the value of the answer would even then be questionable.
Why must humans always relate absolute truths to stupid human perceptions? Also, I feel sorry for Brian Greene here lol. No disrespect, but the others aren't even on his level.
ahh, most interesting discussions in this session :) Especially about the simplicity of einstein vs newton :)
And also nice to see Brian Greene again, havent seen him since he talked on TED, about string theorry :)
Gostaria que fosse disponibilizada a legenda - se possível em Língua Portuguesa - do vídeo "Historical Capitalism: Money and Imagination.
Grata,
Professora Marta Diogo
Small error here. You have 6 batches of 3 after 5 snaps so 6x2= 12 + 5 = 17. Now if you really want a way out of this one we need to get more creative. Lets say the bar is arranged 2x9. We make 9 batches of 2 with 8 snaps. Now we stack the 2's 2 deep so that we have 4 stacks of 2 2's and one left over. Im pretty sure anyone could make a clean snap of the 2 2's into 4 so, 8 + 4 (for the stacks) + 1 (the leftover) = 13. If you take this new rule to its conclusion you could do it in 5. Maybe less?
@gbiota1 well, thats your problem, this isn't meant to be educational, this isn't meant to be science. This is a round table discussion, a meeting of mind and mingling of spontaneous idea's and views on a specific subject.
For me and many people, that has as much value as a scientific presentation.
In the past, philosophers were the ones frontiering science, now its the scientists philosophizing, sharing visions, idea's and ways of thinking, this is just as valuable in progressing science.
This is so much fun.
found this to be a waste of time, after 40 minutes i felt i could be certain this was just complete speculation on something genetics and neuroscience could answer with certainty, although the value of the answer would even then be questionable.
Why must humans always relate absolute truths to stupid human perceptions?
Also, I feel sorry for Brian Greene here lol. No disrespect, but the others aren't even on his level.