darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
What is it called when someone says no, but actually doesn't mean that? Imagine this situation: when two lovers have had an argument then one of them is trying to apologise but the other one (usually the girl) says "no, I don't forgive you." but she isn't really angry. She just want him to insist more. She says no in a some kind of seductive or cute way. What is this behavior called?
I understand why all non-degenerate energy states can be chosen to be real up to an overall phase (as is highlighted here Is a non-degenerate wavefunction real or complex?). However I've been told the argument holds in the opposite direction -- (that all energy eigenstates that can be represented as purely real are non-degenerate). Is this true? I'm having trouble finding a proof of this.
I know that as the kernel parameter for the RBF kernel increases, the Gaussian function becomes less peaked and broader. The reach of the points become larger meaning that farther datapoints have more weight. Intuitively, it makes sense that a larger reach means a smoother decision boundary. However, since I don't have an extensive background in mathematics, I find it difficult to come up with a more mathematical explanation. I was wondering whether anyone could help me with that?
I came across this question while studying for the SAT. What the humanities teach are valuable skills. These include the ability to think critically; to construct, analyze, and respond to arguments; to see both sides of an issue; and to understand the processes that have brought us to where we are today. (A) NO CHANGE (B) skills: these The answer sheet says that (A) is correct, but it does not specify why. I thought the answer is (B) as what follows correctly elaborates on the previous information.
This stems out of my personal curiosity and it's not related to any homework of sort. Suppose I have a table made of some uniform substance (like plastic), and then I strike some point of the table with a hammer. Will the disturbance/wave I produce travel always the speed of sound in that medium, or will there be cases in which the wave travels at a different speeds?
I have a weighted directed graph representing the intensity of movements of individuals between locations, with weights representing the mobility flow. I have another dataset consisting of particular paths that are taken by specific individuals. For example, for a person named Alice, I know how she moved from node A to node B, potentially via some intermediate stops through other nodes. What I want to evaluate is how likely this is given the mobility network (the weighted directed graph). Essentially, can I compute some kind of distance/statistical measure that tells me how "deviant" or how "consistent" these observed paths are, given the mobility network (taking into account the edge weights)?
I just discovered Lean and using computers for stating and proving theorems. The first question that came to my mind, can we write any proof with Lean? Or are there limitations (something that you can write a proof for on paper but not in Lean)? I'm not talking about practicality or feasibility. But does the Lean system have the capability? Edit: I posted the same question on proofassistants.stackexchange.
So I'm confused with The Second Law of Thermodynamics. It says that heat flows from the high temperature to low temperature. For example, if we put a glass of cold water on the dining room, the cold water will eventually have the same temperature as the dining room, because heat will flow from the air in the dining room into the cold water. The cold water "gains" heat and the air in the dining room "looses" heat. But, why does the temperature in the dining room remain the same? Shouldn't it become colder? The same goes for a thermometer when someone that has a fever uses it. Will their body temperature loose heat because the heat will flow from their body to the thermometer?
Geometrically, what is the difference between a diagonizable matrix and an orthogonally diagonizable matrix? I understand the difference algebraically, as explained here and many other places. But I'm struggling to see the difference geometrically: both will not rotate (assuming the field is the reals), but will stretch by different amounts along different axes (Wikipedia calls this a inhomogenous dilation). Graphically, I can't see the difference between, say, a circle or ellipse dilated inhomogenously along orthogonal axes versus non-orthogonal axes: in either case, it will remain an ellipse.
I'm a physics graduate that is joining the master degree program of my University. One of the areas of research that i'm very interested is Quantum Field Theory over curved surfaces, but the point is that i don't know how to begin to start studying these subjects. I imagine that i should star from classical field theory and go all through until reach in the quantum field theory over curved spaces. So, do you have suggestions of literature to start those subjects?
There is a word for animals like horses and cows that defecate wherever they happen to be when the need strikes them, versus animals like dogs and cats that seek out one place or another to do their business. It may be that all such animals are herbivores but "herbivore" is not the word I'm looking for as it relates to eating habits rather than pooping habits.
I am getting confused as I study the AdS/CFT correspondence, so I ask this question. CFT is given on the conformal boundary of AdS, which can be derived from Poincare coordinate patch to AdS. Would this mean that CFT has its AdS dual only on the subspace covered by this Poincare coordinate patch? Or does CFT has its AdS dual on the entire AdS space?
This Wikipedia's page says that: David Hume's problem of induction demonstrates that one must appeal to the principle of the uniformity of nature if they seek to justify their implicit assumption that laws which held true in the past will also hold true in the future. For which I'm confused about how to interpret the meaning of appeal in this sentence. Most of the dictionaries I consulted suggest that the phrase appeal to can only be followed by one or more people or organizations but here it is followed by to some law. So how should I interpret that sentence?
I just came across this sentence while studying for the SAT and wonder if it makes sense. The women soon disperse, SOME entering the shallow waters at the beach, OTHERS venturing out onto the rocks to access deeper waters. My first question is, it sounds a little awkward to add some additional fragments beginning with SOME and OTHERS here. Are they participial phrases? Can they be added like this beginning with SOME and OTHERS? My second question is, can they be added with just a comma? SOME ... , OTHERS ... I feel there should be some conjunctions to make it more natural. This makes me so confused. I'd really appreciate it if you could enlighten me. Thank you.
I am taking a graduate-level mechanics course right now, and we are working with the continuous limit of coupled harmonic oscillators. My professor mentioned that he prefers the "bloch wave method" to the determinant method for finding the wave equation, but I do not know what this is. There is no mention of it in Goldstein, to my knowledge. Does anyone know how this works?
For measuring the electric potential difference between two oppositely charged plates A and B, a test charge q is moved from plate A to plate B. My textbook says that the charge is kept in electrostatic equilibrium such that an equal and opposite force to the electrostatic force is applied on the charge to move it opposite to the electric field. However, I don't understand how it is possible for a charge to move if it is acted upon by two equal and opposite forces. My teacher said that the charge moves due to inertia, but I did not understand how, since the charge was initally moving towards the negative plate A.
One of the postulates of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that every observable has a Hermitian operator A. With these operators we can then find eigenvalues of observables, make a time-evolution of a wave function and, in general, calculate the properties of the system. However we also introduce anti-Hermitian operators. My question is: What is the use for anti-Hermitian operators, if observables are described with Hermitian operators? NOTE: I am just diving into the subject of Quantum mechanics, so I hope this question makes sense and is not "too basic".
I've used both Polish and Reverse Polish (RPN) notation. I get that using them one doesn't have to deal with varying evaluation order. While the benefits to automatic computation (as in software) is clear, it's unclear how this aided human reasoning. Can anyone explain how Polish Notation (or even RPN) simplified reasoning by people over infix notation? I'll be happy with any examples or even references to additional reading.
I have a Hotwheels track set. It has a looped structure such that at some point in the car's trajectory, it becomes upside down. But in such a situation, it doesn't fall to the ground. I understand this has something to do with its fast speed. Can someone please explain as to why exactly this happens? Why it doesn't fall down? Something like this. (arrow indicates the position I was talking about) I was wondering what kind of forces were acting on the car at that point. A theory based (and not mathematical) explanation would be helpful since I am not accustomed with mathematical explanations
A decimal representation of a rational number is necessarily either terminating or non-terminating and repetitive. This comes from the fact that when you are dividing there are only a finite set of possible remainders (remainder is always less than the divisor). As you go on dividing for decimal representation, the remainder has to repeat. Similarly, in finite fields, as you go on raising the power of an element, the product has to repeat because there are finite number of possible answers. This leads to Fermat's little theorem. In both cases, the finiteness of the possible set of answers is leading to these important and beautiful results. Can you suggest some more examples of this kind - understandable by school and junior college students?
(Disclaimer: I'm not all that familiar with any of the two topics) Consider the Ising model on some graph with, lets say, two heavily inter-connected components that are sparsely connected between each other. This "bottleneck" would imply (or would be implied by?) that the Cheeger constant of the graph (and thus the first eigenvalue of the Laplacian matrix) is small and also that it would be very difficult for the spins in one component to interact with the spins in the other component. My question then is: is there any result linking the Cheeger constant with the "magnetization" properties of the graph? Something like a bound on the temperature at which the phase transition occurs that depends on the Cheeger constant or vice versa? Thanks in advance!
I'm trying to compile a document which needs the package minted, but it throws the same error over and over: ! Package minted Error: You must have `pygmentize' installed to use this package I can't seem to make it work. Other forums say to install the package "Pygments," which is a Python package, but MikTeX doesn't seem to have that package in its repositories. Am I missing something? Do I have to install another LaTeX motor or something? Edit: Before anybody asks, yes I'm using the "-shell-escape" flag to compile the document which minted requieres.
So, when we solve the optimization problem using Lagrange Multiplier method, I know that lambda can be positive or negative. Lambda is simply the rate of change in the optimal value when the constraint changes. So, I understand that lambda can be positive or negative. Now, my question is when we have inequality constraints. In that case, why do we have the requirement that lambda should be non-negative? I could understand the math behind it. But I am not able to follow up the intuition. Simply put, if Lambda is still the rate of change with respect to the change in the constraint, then why THEORETICALLY SPEAKING can't it be negative?
I have the following list of points : I'm trying to find the best regression model to fit these points. The logistic regression is not close enough to the points : I guess I need something closer to a spline, but I don't know how to compute a regression model based on a spline, all I can find are interpolation models. Also, I would like to be able to compute the derivative of the regression. With a spline interpolation, I don't know how to compute the derivative over x so that it appears as a function of one-variable. For context, this is in order to build a tool for acid-base titration for chemistry. Thanks !
How to punctuate a quotation which is an exclamation, at the end of a sentence which is a question? The quotation is "Fire!" The sentence is: Did he really shout "Fire!"? OK, this is simply the shortest example I can think of to illustrate the question, the actual quotation of concern is longer, and so is the question sentence. But if it is improper to use both the exclamation point and the question mark, I'd like to know why. Searching has only resulted in lots of hits regarding whether to put a single mark inside or outside the quotation.
Suppose I have a principal bundle, and some group G acting on the principal bundle. Is it always possible to find a G-invariant connection on the principle bundle? If G is compact, then I can imagine one can find such a connection by picking any connection to start with and then 'averaging' this connection over the group G. But what is G is not compact? Does an invariant connection still exist, in general? If not, what conditions do I need on G?
I recently asked this question about whether or not profinite groups admit maximal subgroups: And indeed, profinite groups admit subgroups of finite index, so taking any minimum index subgroup containing the finite index subgroup gives a maximal subgroup of the profinite group. Now I wonder if it's true that all subgroups of a profinite group are contained in a maximal subgroup, i.e., can you have infinite chains of infinite index subgroups which do not split off to maximal subgroups periodically as you go up the chain?
(There are a lot of questions about entanglement shown in the Similar Questions box. If there's already something about what I'm about to ask, please refer me there.) Suppose the particle paths are arranged to be of different length (e.g., detector A is close to the emitter but detector B is many miles away). And suppose that both detectors provide an exact time stamp of the detection event. Upon reading the logs of the two detectors, would you find that both detections registered at the same time, indicating that one particle got "stuck" in detector A until the other particle was detected at B?
I learned that the possessive apostrophe -s is used for living beings and the "of" form for non living things: The dog's name is Sherlock The color of the flower is yellow However, I have noticed that these rules are often ignored in spoken language: The road's name is Privet Drive The name of the dog is Sherlock Are these mistakes made by non-native speakers or are these just theoretical grammatical rules that are not really strictly applied by native speakers in their spoken language as well? Does one stand out directly as a non-native speaker with these errors?
I'm wondering if 'calls have grown for X to be Y-ed' is an acceptable substitute for 'there have been growing calls for X to be Y-ed'? To clarify, these are examples of the latter from the first page of Google search results: 'There have been growing calls by some eco-activists and developing countries for powerhouse states to foot the bill for climate change.' or 'There have been growing calls for St David's Day to be made a bank holiday in Wales'
I know that loop-level three-photon vertex in QED is zero since the contribution from fermion and antifermion cancel each other. Also, from what I know this has something to do with gauge invariance of the QED. However, my question is "is this true even when the gauge invariance is broken?". If the gauge invariance is broken, I guess the photon will not only get a mass, but also there will be additional contribution from longitudinal mode of the photon which I am not sure whether this will change the story.
I need a verb that describes asking someone to stop helping you, even though you know they mean well, because it's not helpful. So you ask them in a way that is almost pleading. It's stronger than just asking, but it's not quite pleading. I'm doing an analysis of a play, and one aspect of this analysis is that I have to categorize, line by line, what each character is trying to do in one action verb. It is proving to be harder than I thought.
When a capacitor is charged, electrons flow from the battery terminal to the plate of the capacitor, as the electrons flow through the wire, they must be having some kinetic energy? So, when the electrons finally stop at the plates of the capacitor, what happens to their kinetic energy? We don't normally assume the kinetic energy to get stored in the capacitor, we only consider the energy stored in the capacitor to be due to the decrease in potential energy of the charge as it flows from one terminal of battery to the other, then where does the kinetic energy go?
In the case of elastic scattering or absorption between photons and electrons, the incident light is either fully reflected or fully absorbed and hence it either retains its wavelength or ceases to exist. But how does inelastic scattering between them work? Specifically, if light has a wavelength, how exactly does that wavelength change in such a way that the light transfers only some of its energy and hence its wavelength increases?
Let A and B be solenoids with the same pole facing each other. Then will their repulsion cause the set up to jump upwards? Please correct me if I am wrong: Solenoid A exerts a downward force on Solenoid B, which in turn exerts the same force on the ground. Then due to newton's third law, the ground exerts the same force and the whole thing is pushed upwards. If this force is greater than gravity, the set up will jump upwards. The connecting material makes sure the solenoid B is also carried upwards with Solenoid A.
I am trying to find the minimum energy point of a catenary curve. Can anyone please let me know whether there is a potential energy or energy formula for a catenary curve ? Especially I would like to know when the end points of a catenary changes it's position, I would like to know how the energy of a particular point on a catenary changes and where that particular point will reach in position.
I am confused in which category to put this sentence. It's a polite request, so it looks like it's an example of Imperative Sentence. But it does express the desire to have mango (even though not directly with the use of "I wish" or "I desire"), so feels like it may be Optative Sentence as well. And the listener of this sentence will most likely respond in "yes" or "no", that makes it a question.
We know that thermal radiation is one of the ways energy can be transferred from one object to another. And we know, objects at any temperature emit electromagnetic radiation. So does that mean molecules and atoms are constantly losing energy? And why isn't this considered in the first law of thermodynamics? How can we even calculate the amount of thermal energy converted into electromagnetic energy (radiation).
I searched a lot on the internet but I couldn't find any helpful answers, so here I am. I'm trying to create a chessboard figure, using xskak package that contains a label for each square. An example of what I'm trying to achieve is shown in the xskak tutorial on overleaf, linked here. I'll also add a screenshot of the image I'm referring to: Thanks!
I've heard three seemingly contradictory facts, so apparently I'm not understanding at least one of them correctly. "Proper time along a path is the time elapsed for a clock that travels along that path." "Proper time along a null path is zero." "There are no preferred inertial reference frames, so if I travel at the speed of light, my own clock that I take with me will tick like normal for me." So how can it tick like normal but then not tick at all? Which of these three statements is incorrect?
A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one is apparently accredited to William Shakespeare. Just to clarify - I mean the FULL quote, not just 'Jack of all trades' part. Is there a book, poem, or work by Shakespeare that proves he is the author? I have searched through the complete works of Shakespeare and couldn't find any phrase like this.
Monoids represent maps from some mathematical object to itself. Groups represent the automorphisms of some mathematical object. What do abelian groups represent? One unsatisfying answer would be that they just represent automorphisms of nice enough mathematical objects. However it seems rather uncommon for the automorphisms of some object to form an abelian group unless they have very few automorphisms. Furthermore, the theory of abelian groups is very different from the theory of groups in general, and abelian groups appear frequently in other applications where they are not the automorphisms of some object in an obvious way, like homology groups. This suggests that maybe its just a coincidence that abelian groups are groups, and that they represent something else. What do they represent?
Consider the following: "Saranghe" not only means "I love you," but it also means "Let's be together till we die." In Telugu, "Intiki veltunnava?" means "Are you going home?" What I'm wondering is whether I should capitalize the i in the transliteration of "intiki veltunnava? In other words, which one should it be? In Telugu, "intiki veltunnava?" means... In Telugu, "Intiki veltunnava?" means... If Telugu had a distinction between uppercase and lowercase letters, I could just use the equivalent version in the English transliteration, but Telugu is written in an abugida script, so that isn't really applicable. The transliteration introduces a new element that I can't figure out how to resolve.
The Novikov self-consistency principle prevents a paradox in which a billiard ball is sent to its past through a closed timelike curve (allowed under general relativity) such that it collides with its past self and prevents it from entering. Imagine a setup where the ball, as soon as it exits in the past, hits a switch that closes a gate across the entrance. What's to stop that from creating a paradox? There's no alternate trajectory for the ball; the switch can be a plate that covers the exit so that the ball can't avoid hitting it.
Momentum is the defined as the product of mass and velocity and can be thought as measuring how much motion something has. However, it is not clear to me why we need momentum and why force is not sufficient to explain nearly all the phenomena. Consider a larger mass moving at the same speed as an object of smaller mass. We say the object of larger mass is harder to stop, as it has more momentum. However, could we not just say the object of larger mass exerts more force, so it requires a greater force to stop it? The use of momentum is not entirely clear to me.
I got a mouse which has wireless charging capabilities a while back. I would like to take advantage of this. However, I currently have an extremely nice mousemat from grovemade I grabbed in a sale a while back https://grovemade.com/mouse-pads/ which I would like to keep using. My idea is simply place a wireless charging mousemat below it. However, the grovemade mousemat has an aluminium plate in it and so the wireless charing will induce eddy currents. If you know how strong these eddy currents will be and/or whether that will make wireless charging impossible. I would appreciate any help. Thanks, Pioneer