darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I find it really amusing when other people misuse words but my sense of humor fails when it's me. I have always used "notwithstanding" to mean "assuming that A doesn't impact B". For example The delivery will be on time, notwithstanding the holiday. To me, this meant, the delivery should be on time, but you never know what impact the holiday will have on it. Turns out, notwithstanding means almost the opposite: in spite of, regardless of. So my question is, what word should I be using instead?
Suppose we look at the twin paradox where the twin traveling at high speed relative to an observer on earth has a clock which counts time by sending photons of light across a distance within the spaceship (perpendicular to the direction of motion) to a detector which counts off 'time' as the interval between photon detections. If the speed of light is constant in both frames, and the distance the photon travels is equal in both frames (no length contraction in the perpendicular direction), won't both observers say the same amount of time has passed in both frames at a later time (suppose the observer on earth uses an identical clock)? Wouldn't a difference in observed time intervals imply differences in the speed of light?
A guy walks into a bar. His buddy laughs and says, "Don't worry, I didn't see it either. What is the meaning of this joke? What makes it funny? (Is it supposed to be funny?) I saw this joke in the mood message of a British guy. It is a kind of bar joke but there is usually a connection. (For example: a guy with dyslexia walked into a bra). I didn't get this one. Can it be a meta-joke?
I'm trying to analyse the Ballad of Serenity Valley which is the theme song for the tv series Firefly: take my love take my land take me where I cannot stand I don't care I'm still free you can't take the sky from me My interpretation relies on the meaning of 'take' in the second line, being different from the third line, which are a rhyming pair. Is there a name for this scheme or pattern?
There is plenty of information about how to encode arithmetic given the lambda calculus. The wikipedia article on Church Encoding seems complete to my inexpert eye. My question is "how about the other direction?" What's a good way to encode the lambda calculus in ordinary real or integer (or even matrix) arithmetic? It would seem that an application of Godel Numbering would do it, but I have been unable to find any writing on Godel Numbering for the lambda calculus specifically. It also seems plausible to encode the lambda calculus in arithmetic in some way more efficient than Godel Numbering; perhaps someone has done that? I might settle for the SKI calculus or some other Turing-complete language that's easier to encode than the lambda calculus.
If you are using a word that normally wouldn't start with a capital letter, should it be lower case after an e.g.? Also should e.g. have a capital E at the start of a sentence? Example phrases: Should I always plug in electrical items? e.g. Electric hairdryer, phone charger... Should I always plug in electrical items? e.g. electric hairdryer, phone charger... Should I always plug in electrical items? E.g. Electric hairdryer, phone charger... Should I always plug in electrical items? E.g. electric hairdryer, phone charger...
I'm interested in the eigenmodes of the membrane for various mediums, such as vacuum, air, water, etc., which impose a damping effect on the membrane. This cannot be done by merely changing the value for the wave propagation speed, c, because this value belongs to the string/membrane itself, and not to the medium around it. Can the influence of medium be incorporated in the wave equation for vibrating string/membrane?
What is the word to describe a person who popularized a sport? The person does not need to be one of the original players nor even currently active. An example is Arnold Schwarzenegger popularizing competitive bodybuilding. There were many superstar bodybuilders before him, like Eugen Sandow, and he has been inactive for a decade. Arnold is, no doubt, the reason why many people started bodybuilding.
My English teacher just asked us to write a random sentence in English. Off the top of my head I wrote "I like to eat apples and bananas". She highlighted "apples" and said: "man, this is blatantly wrong". "Uh, what's wrong, M'am?" "It should be bananas and apples. English people always enumerate things in reverse alphabetical order. Always. Just like when they enumerate parts of the body, they always converge to the heart. Always. We do that automatically, without even thinking about it. Not doing it is wrong". Granted, I'm not a native speaker, but I've never heard anything like this before. Bullshit or what?
Possible Duplicate: Electrodynamics textbook that emphasizes applications I am a graduate student in applied mathematics and I am looking for a concise introduction to Maxwell's equations / basic principles of electromagnetism. (I have enjoyed the book by Purcell, Electricity and Magnetism, as an undergrad but I have forgotten most of it). I would like something that covers the conceptual details in a quick way and not necessarily a big textbook. You may assume that I have the necessary mathematics background. I am looking for something that will explain the physics, i.e not a huge textbook with intricate calculations but a short book to get a feel for what is going on.
So, I finished my undergrad with a degree in applied mathematics, but when reading some graduate level texts and/or papers, I often find myself struggling. I eventually get there, but I often feel like I lack the intuition necessary to be able to come up with concepts on my own. I feel like I'm just missing some pivotal step in the journey to mathematical maturity. Does anyone have any books/references/advice? PS: If this means anything at all, as I was not a mathematics major, I did not take analysis or abstract algebra.
The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the term marketing is a word that is related to advertising, business and commerce. A colleague once said to me that she went to do some marketing. I came to realise that she meant shopping for grocery in the supermarket, only after dwelling further onto the subject. But this is something that is rarely used in such context based on my own personal experience. My question is: Is the usage of the term marketing in the literal sense still appropriate in the English speaking community?
Say I had a plastic water bottle that was slightly crushed, I could uncrush it (mostly) by covering the opening with my mouth and blowing air into it hard. Would it be easier to do this if the bottle was full of water? or while empty (full of air)? Why? My thoughts are that it would be easier if it was full of water because water doesn't compress as easily as air and so more force will be applied to the walls of the bottle. Is this correct thinking? Are there other factors involved?
Let's say you have a garden hose connected to an ordinary water tap which is opened fully. If you pinch the end of the hose, water leaves the hose at a higher speed (and this can be useful while watering plants, to reach pots which are further away). However when a tap (with no hose connected) is opened only slightly, water flows out at a low speed, possibly even in drops. The actions of pinching the end of a hose and of almost-closing an open tap seem similar, so why the difference in behaviour?
The cosmic microwave background that we observe uniformly around us is usually explained by assuming that our universe is the surface of a four dimensional sphere. That way the uniformity makes sense since there is no center. My question is if this is true then what is the explanation that describes the fact that the farther we look into space, the further we look back in time. I can't perfectly picture this and see how it would coexist. Help me out.
In my research, I make use of a tool which provides a platform for researchers to investigate phenomenon X in a variety of ways. I want to frame it this way in a paper that I am writing: "Using the --- platform provided by the tool for investigating X, we develop and illustrate a novel method to assess aspect Y of X". I am looking for an adjective to fill ---. "Versatile" comes to my mind. But I feel like there might be better adjectives to use. I don't mind restructuring the sentence if that makes it sound more professional. Any help is appreciated!
Given the sentence, We discourage people from committing crimes by using law enforcement, religion and education. I see two possible interpretations: [We discourage people by using law enforcement, religion and education] from committing crimes. We discourage people from [committing crimes by using law enforcement, religion and education]. Of course the second interpretation may not make sense in this particular case, but generally speaking both interpretations are equally valid. So my question is, how to rearrange the sentence for it to be well-structured and have only one clear interpretation?
I was reading Frankenstein and I've noticed that the word after the exclamation mark usually isn't capitalised (unless it's a noun). Some of the quotes I've found: Alas! who is safe, if she be convicted of crime? and Alas! to me the idea of an immediate union with my cousin was one of horror and dismay. and Great God! what a scene has just taken place! Why the word after the exclamation mark does not begin with a capital letter? Has the rule for using exclamation marks changed and when did it change?
I was waiting on a red light the other day and was wondering. If I'm in my car, not moving and I see a car that's going to hit me from behind. Would I (my body) be safer if I put on the break or if I put the car in neutral? I assume there's no car in front of me and there's no posibility to be hit by an other car. Also, the car crashing into me is going at a good speed.
What is an English phrase to describe a video that is not running smoothly, but rather has interruptions in it, becoming sort of like a GIF? This typically happens due to technical problems such as low memory or CPU power, which is why I'm afraid I can't think of a way to demonstrate exactly what I mean (e.g., I cannot paste a link to a video like that). I am not necessarily looking for an adjective; any phrase will do. I would also like to include another related question: what's a word/phrase for almost the same situation but with sound rather than video? I.e., when the sound comes and goes (e.g., over the phone).
I need to construct a sentence, in which I'm referring to a feature of each of the animals in a given species. I don't quite know what the possessive of species should be, both in singular and plural. Example: (Talking about a single species with fuzzy ears.) The species' ears are notably fuzzy. Is the above correct? What if I had to mention multiple species all having fuzzy ears?
Here are the examples of compound subjects: Everything on the bed and everything in the closet was organised in under an hour. Everybody who witnessed the shooting and everybody in the room were interviewed. Anyone on the soccer team and anybody on the basketball team was eligible for the scholarship. Should I also use was instead of were in the second example? Or the first and the third examples are incorrect that I should use were instead of was.
Not all equations of motion admit a Hamiltonian. Several questions and answers on this site concern this correspondence, for example Hamiltonian or not?, When can an autonomous system be written using a Hamiltonian?, and What are the necessary/sufficient conditions for a system to be Hamiltonian/non-Hamiltonian?. My question is who was the first to establish that not all equations of motion can be described in a Hamiltonian fashion? Hamilton himself? Someone else? In which paper or book was this lack of total correspondence first exposed? Who has then developed the details of this correspondence? What is the current state of affairs? (From Hamiltonian or not? I gather that it is still a matter of trial and error to obtain a Hamiltonian from the equation of motions?)
Does every convex, nonempty, body have a supporting line at every point on its boundary? This seems intuitively true to me, but I am having a hard time figuring out how to prove it. I was thinking of using a slicing argument. That is, cut a line through the body and then we have a set of curves which are convex. So more generally, do we need to prove that every convex function has a supporting line at every point?
What are some interesting applications of the Mean Value Theorem for derivatives? Both the 'extended' or 'non-extended' versions as seen here are of interest. So far I've seen some trivial applications like finding the number of roots of a polynomial equation. What are some more interesting applications of it? I'm asking this as I'm not exactly sure why MVT is so important - so examples which focus on explaining that would be appreciated.
I am trying to conform to the British practice (specifically Oxford Style Guide) and I am a little confused which to use to mark a nickname: Andrew 'Andy' Johnson Andrew "Andy" Johnson I know following the rules I should use single inverted commas, however the first one looks a tad weird to me. I have seen the latter option a lot on newspapers and business cards but not the former. I am going to use that for email signatures and names on business cards.
I am trying to find a verb which can be used to indicate that someone is acting pedantic. I first considered "pedanticise", but, having found only one source for this, I thought I'd broach the question here. Edit: To clarify, I am defining pedantic to mean: excessively concerned with minor details or rules; overscrupulous. -- Google Or: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching. -- Dictionary.com An example of this word used in a sentence would be, "Because Ellie spent the whole day ____ing over the grammar choices in her emails, she didn't get any work done!"
There is a phrase in Malay that goes "prepare an umbrella before the rain", meaning one must be prudent and proactive of future challenges by making all the preparations necessary. I would like the English equivalent of such a phrase. Thanks in advance, and apologies if this has been asked before! (I checked as much as I could) EDIT: What I'm looking for is the act of preparing a solution to a specified problem before the problem happens. So anticipating rain, one prepares an umbrella.
It is generally assumed that there is no limit on how many bosons are allowed to occupy the same quantum mechanical state. However, almost every boson encountered in every-day physics is not a fundamental particle (with the photon being the most prominent exception). They are instead composed of a number of fermions, which can not occupy the same state. Is it possible for more than one of these composite bosons to be in the same state even though their constituents are not allowed to be in the same state? If the answer is "yes", how does this not contradict the more fundamental viewpoint considering fermions?
I keep hearing from native speakers the phrases like these: There is a lot of cars (books, hotels) There is a couple of cars (books, hotels) There is five (ten, etc.) of cars (books, hotels) There is a few of cars (books, hotels) Nevertheless, somebody told me that the phrases like above are incorrect for sure and there should be there are instead of there is. Whom could I believe?
When someone makes an assertion, the distinction between "how did you know" and "how do you know" seems to be that "how did you know" implies that the person in question is correct in their assertion. "How do you know" is normally an inquiry into the person's credentials, and often expresses that the assertion is incorrect and/or ungrounded. Does anyone know what the reason for this distinction is? Why does simply changing the tense of the verb change the implication so strongly? I suspect that, linguistically speaking, the "did" might be a different tense than the past tense, but I'm not sure what it is, or I could be entirely wrong.
I know, that if a polynomial function fails to have any real root, then, by the fundamental theorem of algebra, it must possess at least a pair of complex roots having non-zero imaginary part. The real roots are points of intersection of the curve, with the horizontal axis, on the real plane. My problem is in visualising location of complex roots. Can I make use of Argand Plane in visualising?
I found that some theories about quantum theory is similar to Fourier transform theory. For instance, it says "A finite-time light's frequency can't be a certain value", which is similar to "A finite signal has infinite frequency spectrum" in Fourier analysis theory. I think that a continuous frequency spectrum cannot be measured accurately, which is similar to Uncertainty principle by Hermann Weyl. How do you think about this?
I study cognitive neuroscience and I periodically run into physics related questions in the context of neuroimaging technologies. My question specifically refers to electric and magnetic fields that can be measured by electroencephalography (EEG) and Magnetoencephalography (MEG), respectively. One interesting difference between the EEG and MEG signal is that unlike the electric field, the magnetic field is unimpeded by differing conductances across brain, skull, scalp and other tissues. I was wondering if somebody could explain what differences between the two fields account for these phenomena.
I know that many questions on topics similar to this one have been asked before, but I have read many of them and still not able to solve my problem. You could attribute it to my poor command of English. My question relates to two weird sentences, and I want to know which sentence is correct: I am so hungry, it feels like my tummy is eating myself. or I am so hungry, it feels like my tummy is eating me.
Based on my very basic understanding of the Johnson noise, it's not just a DC phenomena, but should change with frequency in a system, where there is a frequency dependent, real component to the impedance. I think both the skin effect and eddy current losses contribute to the effective resistance of an inductor, so Johnson noise should increase at higher frequencies. Am I being dumb?
I had a confusion in the diffraction experiment about which I was taught in school. According to the formula we Derived The width of the central maxima decreases on decreasing width of slit and vice versa. But what i wonder is what happens to the max intensity of central maxima in these cases? I asked two physics teachers and they gave me opposite answers-one said it increases on decreasing slit width which i feel is right but the other said it would be the same as light is of constant wavelength(monochromatic). What do you think? Please explain:)
As a result of the Ehrenfest Paradox, the geometry of a rotating disc is non-Euclidean. However, while reaching this conclusion, we assumed that "the radius doesn't undergo Lorentz contraction", because "the radius is always perpendicular to the velocity vector", which is equivalent to : "in a circle, the radius is always perpendicular to the tangent at that point." But this is an Euclidean assumption (We have to use the parallel postulate to prove it.) Therefore it doesn't work in Non-Euclidean geometries, and we shouldn't be able to use it.
Good evening everybody, I'm stuck with the following problem from an old exam in Linear Algebra. One is given two Eigenvectors with corresponding two Eigenvalues and told that the trace is negative. I figured out a third orthogonal eigenvector and tried to get to the matrix via diagonalisation, using a parameter alpha for the third eigenvector. Then I set the trace of this matrix equal to the sum of the known eigenvalues plus alpha. But my method does not work out; it does not give me a negative value for alpha. Where am I going wrong? How could I make this work? Thank you so much.
For example in the models for holographic superconductors we can calculate the conductivity. Also there is an energy gap. I can understand that it describes a superconductor. However I have also heard people talk about superfluidity in holographic QCD. I believe they are talking about the condensates such as the pion or the chiral condensate. Where is the superfluid in holographic QCD (quark gluon plasma maybe?) and how do I know that it is a superfluid?
I would like to produce some diagrams (preferably using TikZ/PGF) using the visual notation given in Enterprise Integration Patterns by Hohpe & Woolf. I'm aware of stencils from the above site, based on Visio, but I'd rather be able to compose them directly in my LaTeX documents. Is anyone aware of PGF library packages that I can use, or failing that how I can create reusable symbols for use in a TikZ/PGF figure?
Even though I can find this command hiding somewhere on the internet, I though it might be useful to have it up here for the LaTeX community in general. How does one run TeX from the command line interface (Terminal) in Linux? Are there any required parameters? What if the command is part of a bigger script, how does the script know when the TeX processing is done to continue with any subsequent actions needed? Is there a clear manual for this somewhere? A starting point might be: pdflatex [options] filename.tex latex [options] filename.tex xelatex [options] filename.tex
If I understand correctly, axioms are those statements that we assume to be true, instead of proving to be true. I have seen that in topology theory, various axioms of countability and separation axioms seem to be definitions of some concepts, instead of being assumptions. So I was wondering if "axioms" in topology theory are really axioms? If no, is this kind of naming rules common in all other branches of mathematics? Thanks and regards!
Imagine I have a vertical straw, and that it is partially filled with water. If I were to decrease the radius of the straw at the bottom end, eventually surface tension would allow the water to remain in the straw (i.e. the force of gravity would not be enough to overcome the surface tension and for water to flow out of the straw). What I'm curious to understand is for a certain (small) radius at the bottom, how much force/pressure would be required at the top of the straw to overcome surface tension and force the water out of the bottom of the straw at a certain (volume flow) rate. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
If we have two complex numbers, in polar form, as the numerator and denominator of a fraction, and we are asked to write them as a single complex number, is there an easier way to deal with them rather than the usual procedure? (By usual procedure I mean first expanding them by writing the value of each term and then realizing the denominator, etc.) Thank you.
Why is Erbium Doped Fiber Amplifier (EDFA) preferred over Erbium Doped Waveguide Amplifier (EDWA)? The question has been asked from an engineering point of view, but obviously I would also be interested in Physics of it. Is it just because of the difficulty of constructing a waveguide, or is there something more? I understand the individual benefits and limitations of a fiber amplifier and a waveguide but cannot understand the preference in this case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier#Doped_fiber_amplifiers
I have been using TikZ to draw game-trees for my game-theory lectures (mostly using the automata package) but I could not figure out how to draw an arc across the edges the leave a given node. When we want to denote that a player has a continuum of actions available at a node, we usually draw an arc across the edge leaving such node. For example see the arc crossing the edges that leave the first node in this picture: Any suggestions on how I could try to implement this in TikZ? Thanks!
We have a car dealer around here with an ad that reads "No Fake Lures". Now, as I understand the concept of a lure, if it doesn't attract attention, it's not a lure. And if a lure does attract attention, it's a lure, so no matter what is used to make the fake lure, it's a an actual lure. Therefore, it's not possible to have a fake lure. What do you call a statement like "No fake lures"?