darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
If an angle is the measure of distance between to points (Edit: Ok, admittedly bad phrasing. A measure of rotation between two intersecting lines, or points, etc.), is there such a thing as a zero degree angle? I asked a math nerd friend about this years ago and he still hates me for it but couldn't prove it either way at the time. Is this merely pedantic or delusional thoughts regarding definition of "angle" (Edit: based on answer below regarding Euclidian geometry, this all now seems very likely a colossal misunderstanding) or am I missing something? I do not think zero degree angles exist. Is there proof of this either way? Edit: A better question would be why Euclidian zero degree angles were thought to not exist, or why he avoided them?
Suppose someone comes up with a great original idea. Some time later, someone else comes up with exactly the same idea without knowing that idea been conceived already and even without being influenced in any way by the other person's thought. In other words, both of them make the discovery totally independently and not at the same time. For example, Leibniz and Newton invented Calculus this way; Cook and Levin established NP-Complete theory this way. The idea from the very first inventor is no doubt considered original. But what about the same idea independently conceived by others later in time? I have no problem calling the latter original, although it seems less original than the very original one. Would there be a word or phrase that can readily convey the state of being "less" original?
Specifically, I am referring to the traditional gesture some female service staff members seem to do, when demonstrating their work or their readiness to receive orders. Also, this is the gesture Alice Cullen performs in Twilight movies on several occasions (if I remember correctly). I could not find a photo with this exact gesture. It is similar to the one shown in the first photo, but the hands are held higher with demonstrativeness, tension, sharpness of movement and gesture itself (possibly with emotion and a smile), and military-like demeanor. The main difference with with the second photo is that in the gesture I refer to, the hands are held in the front and not in the back; also, the way the hands are interlocked is different (more like in the first picture).
I have a circle moving on a spherical surface. If the camera angle is fixed, is there a way to calculate the original circle's offset from the centre given the distorted ellipse formed when the circle moves to the edge of the sphere(as seen from the camera)? I've looked into Listing's plane and the Tissot directrix(because I'm working with eyeball rotation), but neither seems to provide a clear solution to this. I've also looked papers regarding eyeball roation but they seem to focus on the physiological aspects rather than the math of the movement. In other words: In the picture above, given one of the outer nine images as well as the middle one, I want to calculate how much the circle(i.e. iris) has moved/rotated from its position in the middle picture. I assume it has to do with comparing the distorted ellipse with the circle, but I can't seem to find out how. Is there some formula for this?
Reading the wikipedia article about the particle in the box, there is this image: Animations from B to F show wave function of a particle in a box starting from ground state up to excited states. The animation C shows wave function behavior in the first excited state and at the middle point both real part (blue) and imaginary part (red) of the wavefunctions are zero all the time. Does it mean that particle will never ever be found at that point? Similarly, for second excited state in the picture D we have two points where this happens, so does that mean that there are two points in space where particle will never ever be found? I can't really tell from the picture if this continues for higher excited states. Is there some law that says for the n-th excited state there will be n points in space where probability of finding particle is zero?
I've seen nice graph showing relative activity of each isotope in Chernobyl fallout: Could anyone suggest similar graph or raw data but for absolute isotope activity for the case of nuclear explosion fallout? (for some boosted fission bomb) So that one could see how much gamma, beta and alpha-active particles one should expect over time, and particle energy. PS. This graph is for damaged nuclear plant fallout, but I want absolute graph for nuclear explosion fallout. Explosions have different isotope content due to much shorter duration. Update: I see that graph might be hard to find. Maybe someone have isotope content i.e. how much % of each isotope? Or at least how it is supposed to be different from Chernobyl fallout. Then I might be able to simulate decay by myself.
What's a word that can be used to describe an author's portrayal of a scene as normal even though the content of what is described is innately disturbing/unnatural? He cut open the dog's underbelly and we all took turns examining its insides, which were just as we had expected them to be. To get over the disappointment it was suggested we head out for drinks later, which I was forced to decline... The writer's description of the scene is word. The writer words the scene. This disgusting scene is worded by the writer. Earlier I was able to think specifically of the word, but now I can't even remember whether it was an adjective/verb, so sorry for being so open in my example usages, but hopefully this contains enough information for someone to propose something.
I have a question about a Quantum Mechanics machine that should interact with the past, I can't find any flaws with it, but I just want to make sure. The machine has a lot of facts about history, some true and some false, and the machine knows which one each fact is. It measures the spin of an electron, and if it has an up spin, it tells a true 'fact' and then a false 'fact', but if it has a down spin, it tells the a false 'fact' and then a true 'fact'. It does this several times so it will probably have both at least once. So until you check which one, the past is in a sense, in a quantum state of being one thing or another. If this all stems from incredible stupidity, I'm really sorry, but if it doesn't, thanks in advance. EDIT: To specify, the part where it 'interacts' with the past, is when you check which spin it is, so you can use a coin to do the same thing. In other words: each fact is true and false at the same time, so checking collapses and 'changes' the past.
in Dire Straits "Sultans of Swing" what is the meaning of these two lines: In the first verse: You get a shiver in the dark It's been raining in the park but meantime South of the river you stop and you hold everything A band is blowing Dixie double four time You feel all right when you hear that music ring As I understand blowing Dixie means something like fooling around. But what is double four time? And then later: And Harry doesn't mind if he doesn't make the scene. He's got a daytime job, he's doing alright. He can play the honky tonk like anything, Savin' it up for Friday night. What does it mean? Is he playing really good but saving it up or doesn't do it very well? Thanks.
As is the case with most students (I suppose), I seem to have lost touch with the do doing some "basic" math -- calculating integrals, playing around with matrices and doing some linear algebra etc. -- as I have proceeded through my undergraduate program. To be honest, I didn't practice a whole lost of questions when I took these introductory courses, so I presume that's one source from where this issue stems. I'm a student of physics with a mathematical leaning. Ideally, I don't want to go through a mathematical methods textbooks for physicists/engineers since they're pretty superficial (at times) and are more like "here's-a-result-now-go-solve-problems." At the same time, I don't think I have the time to sit through very long textbooks, such as James Stewart's Calculus. Any suggestions of textbooks, given my aforementioned concerns, where one can "practice" calculus, linear algebra, complex analysis etc. to stay in touch with the practice of being able to solve in questions in closed form.
Is there a way to tell TeX to avoid breaking the page after the first word of a sentence? ... ... He was quite dead. Apparently his neck had been broken. The lightning flashed for a third time, and his face leaped upon me. I sprang to my feet. It (text continues on next page) And then you have to turn the page for the rest of the sentence. It's not in a line on it's own so it can't be penalized like an orphan line. Can TeX be told, to resolve these by, say, breaking the page before that first word? Note: Although the answers given below are very informative, the general consensus had been that the best practice is to leave this for the proofreaders to spot, and then fix manually.
I got a question about the usage of generalization of collocations. There is a word such as "bird of prey" to refer to birds eating animal flesh. And one way to generalize reference of a noun is to put "the" in front of the word, especially for animals, plants, recent inventions; the lion is the king of the animal world of Africa / the smartphone is nowadays a required item. Then my question is whether this kind of expression below is also okay to show generalization; The bird of prey is a bird that eats animal flesh. For other nouns, such as "man of steel," when someone says "the man of steel," a native English speaker would think some particular or specific man of steel since there are several possible possibilities; Stalin, or the Superman in the recent movie, etc.
I am not very familiar with the quirkiness of relativity, and I was wondering how to explain this situation. If a beam of light is shining at some object at some distance from the origin of the beam, does relativity imply that photons in the beam lack time flow and, thereby, never actually experience contact with the object? Wouldn't the photon observe no time passing in the surroundings, immediately at the source of the beam? Could it tell it was moving? However, we see it make contact, so does that mean that what is observed might never actually ever happen in another reference frame? Also, when we see the beam of light traveling at c, how can we record the beam's movement? Shouldn't the beam's photons appear to be in some timeless state?
The closest description I can think of is a "drama queen/king", except that tends to describe people who like being in a drama. Instead, I want a phrase describing people who like to pick up on stories such as the following: questionable decisions of others controversies immoral acts and then they get on their soapbox and passionately rant, uttering phrases like "it's disgusting", "it's a joke", "anyone who agrees with them should be ashamed". Perhaps the descriptive term for that person might need to include that they are often immune to reason on subjective topics, and that the rants cause displeasure in the listeners, since frequent rants can wear listeners down, as the tone is loud, highly opinionated and of a very negative nature. The reason I ask is I want search terms to Google to find techniques for dealing with such a person, and protecting one's self from their effects. Edit: it is not really about whether someone finds faults in others, but the manner in which they frequently rant about issues, either in others, or institutions, or the nature of things.
The area/arc-length is given by an integral or the integral defines the area/arc-length is one the first things we learn in Calculus, but that is done in the Cartesian coordinates, next one moves to polar coordinates and the area is transformed/redefined by a new integral using the Jacobian. My question is : Since area and arc length are invariant of coordinate system, is there a way to define them other than in Cartesian coordinates and transform them from coordinate system to coordinate system with the help of Jacobian? In other words is there a way that area/arc-length is defined independet of coordinate system and then according to the structure of coordinate system it's integral form is reached, without tranforming between coordinate systems, but for a given coordinate system it is derived. (and without the use of Jacobian to move between coordinate systems)
I have a pair of shoes, which seem to isolate me from the ground. In effect I'm gathering static charge and every time i grab an aluminum door handle, that current discharges and that hurts. Ouch. I invented a way to workaround that: when I'm going to touch door handle, first I take my Skeletool (a stainless steel multitool) and touch the door handle with it. Sometimes I even see the small spark and hear the discharge and then I can touch the handle myself unharmed. But what interests me is: why discharging through the multitool does not hurt? This is an electrical current flow what hurts and the current flows the same way even if I hold the tool in my hand. Tool has surely less resistance than human body, so it shouldn't change anything. But it does not hurt :) Why?
Please refer to the figure attached. Consider a normal force is acting on the top of sphere. A constant coefficient of friction causes frictional force throughout the sliding. I want to know after this sphere slides (pure sliding no rolling) for sometime and assuming that it wears as it slides, what should be the shape of sphere after sliding? The one shown in (a) or (b)? In short, I want to know whether the worn side of sphere will be a straight line or a curved one? What will happen if a sphere slides against a sphere? Also, I will highly appreciate if someone can refer to some good papers / books about this. Edit: Additional assumptions Lets assume that hardness of both surfaces is the same. Also assume that material is removed but is not attached to any of the surfaces (no adhesive wear). The phenomenon under consideration is abrasive wear (but no accumulation of wear debris). If a lubricant is in circulation, it is easy to realize this kind of wear
This question pertains to programing but is really a math question. I am building an application that draws a line graph, similar to a stock line graph. The problem is I am not starting with a known set of numbers. The values will come in based on an altitude value. So, when I start the graph I have no idea what the max and min values of my data set will be, because they max might not come along for some time. Like I mentioned, these values will be added to the graph when I receive and elevation value but I don't know these until they are received from my device (iPhone). Is there a formula used to calculate a line graph for unknown values? How can I know what x and y values to use for each new value received? And how can I calculate the min and max of the graph?
I want to discuss with my boss a part of this code - so I need a name for it. items = array.map(function(item){ return item.item; }); I want to say "This usage of the same identifier twice is _______________ and confusing." They might respond "No this is _________ which is fine". Is tautology an accurate word to use there? the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style The use of item in the function call e.g., function(item) could be named anything you want, so instead you could have: items = array.map(function(data){ return data.item; }); What is this called if not tautology? Edit: A non-programming example, would be naming a street Road Street, or worse naming an area in London, London (perhaps New York New York would also work).
In several articles and books, I have read that "the magnetic force on or due to a small element of a circuit is equivalent to two or more of its component elements, provided that the current remains same". i.e. the magnetic force on or due to AB(in red) is the same as the magnetic force on or due to its component current elements (in black) However this doesn't make sense to me because in a closed circuit, the vector addition of current elements is zero. It means the resultant current element of a closed circuit is zero. Hence the force on or due to a closed circuit is zero. However this is not the case (a closed circuit experiences and exerts magnetic force). Then how can "law of vector addition of current elements" be valid?
I don't know why, but since recently my Emacs is behaving strangely. As usual I compiled using C-c C-c to call LaTeX, then there were errors and it asked me to type (as usual) C-c '. but when I did it just commented out the whole paragraph, which is the same effect as C-c %. C-c % still works the same and typing ' produces the same letter, i.e., '. so I somehow have my doubts that it is related to the keyboard, but not out of the question, of course. I can't recall having done any setting changes or changes to my setup since the last time it worked perfectly, but i am not completely sure. I'm running Emacs under Ubuntu, Latex/MP Fly Ref are the automatically hooked modes. Does anyone have an idea?
Dictionary definitions of `bonny' admit to chiefly British (or even Scots), but give no further hint of the possible tinges of this word. Bonny (adj.) means attractive, fair; fine, excellent [M-W]. Perhaps I perceive it as slightly archaic, hence this post. Is this word (still) functioning in the meaning given, and what are the caveats of its usage? Is it the teensiest bit pretentious, or otherwise out of the ordinary? If not, what might be typical usage? (I know about bonny, bonny banks of Loch Lomond. I know about blithe and bonny ladies. I know about one wife or another being `very bonny, thank you'. These, and a perhaps a few other titbits I acquired somewhere, more or less defined the word for me, and I'm finding it difficult to shift away.)
I am creating a program but facing problem with proper language for comment string in program. My program performs some operation. This operation typically always generates some data. (meaningful data if operation went as expected or error data if operation didn't go well). Now this program returns these two things to user: data, True - if operation generates meaningful data data, False - if operation generates error data I want a comment string at the start of program which mentions what this program is returning to user, and I am not able to come up with a single word which will define True/False nature of this data. Things I have on mind for comment string: "Returns data and True/False based on result of operation" (UGLY) "Returns data and success nature of operation" (WUT?) "Returns data and boolean result of operation" (Not good) "Returns data and ....." (I am not good at this really)
I got into a discussion with my physics teacher about the speed of light and I asked What if an object with mass was to lose mass as it gained speed-- would that allow for an object to eventually reach the speed of light or surpass it if possible through that thinking? My teacher didn't really have an answer to that and I was wondering if there was any law of science that prevented an object with mass to become mass-less. Because I know this may be simple minded in thinking but if an object with mass must have infinite energy to reach the speed of light and at that point will have infinite mass, what if an object was to reduce its mass until it had none? Would it then not need infinite energy and be able to move at or past the speed of light in theory?
What cases can "y'all" work in? A prior question asks about the 'proper' usage of "y'all", but it and its answers only address nominative case (all examples are nominative). I think that there are some cases where "y'all" doesn't work as is. For example, nominative: "Y'all come back now, ya hear?" accusative: "I'll ring y'all up tomorrow after the fish fry." possessive: "Bring y'all's swimsuits. The pool will be open." (or "y'allses". yes, I find this is questionable usage) vocative: "Hey y'all! Where's the keg?" but instrumental/dative/indirect object?: nothing sounds right. ? I'll bring the BBQ over to y'all. ? This party is all for y'all. These don't sound right to me. The alternatives that sound right to me would be: I'll bring the BBQ over to you all. This party is all for you all. Can anyone confirm my usage? Has there been a study/paper on this? I ask because most pronouns in English have forms for different cases, so it is not given that "y'all", though a synonym for "you" which only has a different form in possessive case, would or would not have a different form.
What word best describes the experience of starting something, and ending up, before you know it, far deeper into it than you had ever intended, or far more embroiled, involved, or even having finished or done it irreversibly. An example might be, say, opening a book out of curiosity, and finding yourself, the next thing you know, dumbfounded to have finished the whole book, almost as if it had happened by some driving involuntary osmosis or in a blackout. Example sentence with blank for desired word: Having opened the tome with the intent of reading only the first paragraph, she found herself, in what seemed like hardly an hour, staring at it's back cover almost as an alcoholic might awaken from a blackout to an empty liquor cabinet, and wondering at the _________ way some deeds are done in life, almost as if they are done to you.
I watched this video: popped water balloons And as you see when the needle pops the balloons the water stays in the same shape as the balloon for a few fragments of a second. The force impacting the water after the balloon has been popped must be gravity, and since the water stays in the same shape for a while must mean that the water "doesn't know" that it's gravity it should "listen" to now during that time. What does this say about the speed of gravity? How slow/fast is it and what happens with larger/smaller objects? One thing holding the water together could be air pressure, but what happens with if you do the exact same thing in vaccuum? Will it stay in the same shape for a few moment or will it dissolve at the "speed of gravity"? Let's say it stays the same, what would that mean for earth if the sun disappeared? Would we feel the gravitational reaction way after the light went out?
I've just got wondering if this sentence is grammatically correct: You are who I love. This is what I am thinking: Let's focus on the who clause, then you can find that the missing element from this clause is actually an object after the verb love. Therefore, who should be changed to whom, which is an object relative pronoun. You are whom I love. Now, the whom clause has no problem, but you can see that whom clause works as an object. However, there is the place at which a subject complement should be. So, I should either change the whom clause back to a who clause or make you into an object. You is whom I love. It's you whom I love. Whom I love is you. After all that, I came this far with these three sentences and I think the most appropriate sentence is the second one, but I'm not sure if my assumption is right; the way I fixed the sentence, is it right?
I will greatly appreciate your help with this question. I use beamerposter and want all the blocks (across various columns) to be of the same height (= max height of among all other blocks). I came across your solution here: How to modify columns/column environments so they resize automatically to the largest column ? However, in case of beamerposter, blocks can be located in different columns. And this trick of placing blocks inside columns and count the height does not work here. I need somehow to fetch all blocks of all columns of the poster and compute max height (and set each block height to this value, maybe a certain parameter for blocks ?). I imagine there should be a way to re-use a solution from here: How to modify columns/column environments so they resize automatically to the largest column ? by nesting blocks into special dummy columns to count them and to adjust their height. I tried to play around this idea but failed in my tryings. Can you please suggest a solution here? I will greatly appreciate your help with this question. Thank you / John