>>88
Then why the theory itself rests on infinite foundation?
I'm not discussing this again.
Well, someone then could read biology tutorials for fun. And he can even do some controlled experiments, catching a few cats and feeding them various substance, including placebo. Just imagine Terry Davis doing chemistry!
Two hundred years too late for that to be interesting. No one is going to pay you to torture cats, and you're not going to be learning anything doing that you couldn't have read from a book. The closest thing to that is putting make-up on monkeys to see if it turns their skin blue, and even that is slowly being outlawed.
Well, we are getting close to that.
No, no we aren't. Even advanced fluid dynamics and chemical reaction simulations require leasing supercomputer time. Simulation of quantum phenomenon results in an exponential slowdown on classical computers. We're still waiting on room-temperature superconductors before that is feasible for the home user.
You can probably derive most of chemistry, directly from basic nuclear laws - i.e. determinate all properties of substance from its number of protons.
Why? We've already done that. It's called the periodic table of elements. It's been around for decades. You don't need computers for that.
We just need a SICP-level tutorial to get people started.
All the low hanging fruit is already taken. You're not going to be paid to be a hobbyist with a cursory understanding of chemistry. This isn't the tech world where you can learn Ruby in a weekend and land a code-monkey job. People who actually know their shit are a dime a dozen. A SICP-level introduction to chemistry means absolutely nothing. Just because you know the chemical formula of meth doesn't mean that you can start cooking perfect meth.
Also, SICP, while a very good undergraduate textbook on computer science (better than pretty much every book like it that I've ever seen, and far superior to what passes as CS education in most classes), it barely treads the surface of computer science itself. Granted, you'll never need much more unless you want to write circlejerking shit in Haskell, but it is still only an introductory text that omits most of the math and logic behind it (which is boring stuff that I don't really understand anyway).
That is because society injured me. How can I take my revenge?
You can't. No matter what you do, no one will care. In fact, they never cared in the first place, and they don't even acknowledged your anger. Nothing you do will ever make them care about you. Even if you lash out, they will destroy you. When a sandnigger blows himself up in a desert, no one gives too shits about why he did it. All we see is a stupid sandnigger who blew himself up like stupid sandniggers do.
Dismiss this idea immediately.
In fact, a lot of less known mathematician opposed Set Theory, since its inception.
No one takes them seriously. They're main objections (much like yours) are always crap like "but that can't be!" without being able to provide any evidence as to why that can't be. Though, theirs are still better than yours, because yours relies on a global Jew conspiracy that somehow has an interest in forcing infinity.
I will not argue about infinity any further, by the way. We both know that argument is going to be a perpetual stalemate between us and is a waste of both of ours time.
That is because my mom is no scientist and her own education was limited to communist writing and history of CPSU, while her diploma work was something like "Tibetan Paintings". So she, as humanities person, thinks that education is redundant and a person knowing history of CPSU isnt much better than person ignorant of it.
Yeah, that's pretty useless. What does she do for work?