Question on tech research

[KoalaBear33]

Originally posted by ravagon


If you enter into a proof with the assumption that a = b then you cannot perform step 3 and subtract aa from each side as this gives the mathematical relationship 0 = 0, which is meaningless.

I don't think that is a problem. There is nothing wrong with 0=0 (just as there is nothing wrong with 1=1 or 33=33). The reason this proof is wrong is because of the division (as loinburger mentions). You can't divide by b-a because that is division by zero.

KoalaBear33

[KoalaBear33]

Regarding that Russian research topic...

I don't think it is politics that is the cause of the Russian stagnation in research (compared to the scientists they had). You also have to look at the environment (in particular the country and its capabilities). Russia (or USSR) was never a "1st world" country. It was severely lacking many resources and didn't really have a high population. It's actually amazing the amount of things they did under communism when you think about it. I don't think Russia will ever get to its communist "peak" even under capitalism. Even in 50 years from now it will be nowhere near it was under communism.

USA is dominant right now but it is wrong to assume it is because of capitalism (though it did contribute). There are many countries that are capitalistic but are really struggling and might never get anywhere. In contrast, there are countries that are very rich (eg. Kuwait) which have a very poor political system (monarchy).

So what am I saying? Research mainly depends on two things: the presence of scientists and the capabilities of the country.

KoalaBear33

[Serb]

Originally posted by KoalaBear33
Regarding that Russian research topic...

I don't think it is politics that is the cause of the Russian stagnation in research (compared to the scientists they had). You also have to look at the environment (in particular the country and its capabilities). Russia (or USSR) was never a "1st world" country. It was severely lacking many resources and didn't really have a high population.

WTF?
Stagnation in research? In Soviet times?????
If you call that a stagnation, I don't know how you describe prosperity.
WTF, again?
What type of lacking resources are you talking about? Give me just one example of any, ANY strategic resourse that SU/Russia do not has/have now.
And finaly, WTF??????
The population of USA and SU was aproximately equel. I do not understand what are you talking about.
I do not whant to start the fight here, but with those things I'm strongly disagree.

So what am I saying? Research mainly depends on two things: the presence of scientists and the capabilities of the country.

Agreed.
Just, want to add:
The scientists are not become from nowhere. They "created" by nation where they live, by education system and scientific traditions of country where they live. Political system (Democracy/Communism/Monarchy/etc) have light effect on science. Much more important thing is how many money government spending on science/education.

[Lemmy]

Stagnation in research? In Soviet times?????

i think he means after the Soviet "era", like now

What type of lacking resources are you talking about? Give me just one example of any, ANY strategic resourse that SU/Russia do not has/have now.

the only one i can think of is *maybe* infrastructure

Much more important thing is how many money government spending on science/education

that is so true