darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I couldn't clearly understand the phrase "credential mongering" as used in an article in the New Republic about the Ivy League. The extract, from "The Trouble With Harvard" by Steven Pinker, is as follows: Admission to the Ivies is increasingly seen as the bottleneck to a pipeline that feeds a trickle of young adults into the remaining lucrative sectors of our financialized, winner-take-all economy. And their capricious and opaque criteria have set off an arms race of credential mongering that is immiserating the teenagers and parents (in practice, mostly mothers) of the upper middle class. Is it to do with attaining qualifications by any means? Or is the phrase itself imprecise? Thank you!
This suggests that the current MLDA is not effective. However, the estimates in this paper challenge that claim and show that the effects of the current MLDA is statistically significant in all cases we observe. This suggests that the current MLDA is not effective. However, the estimates in this paper challenge that claim and show that the effects of the current MLDA is statistically significant in all cases that we observe.
I'm using latexdiff to highlight the differences between two versions of a tex document, using the default style which is UNDERLINE. This style formats added text in blue with a wavy underline, and removed text in red with a strikethough. I'm interested in formatting the output such that added text is in blue but without the wavy underline (and removed text is in red as before). Is there a command for achieving this? I wasn't able to figure it out from the man page. Another way would be to modify the CCHANGEBAR style, which formats added text in blue and removed text in red but without the strikethrough, to add the strikethrough to the removed text (my question is how).
I'm looking for an equation that looks like the image below. I am comfortable constructing functions that pass the vertical line test, but as this is a relation, I am not really sure how to start. Would this need to be defined implicitly? An explanation on how you constructed it would be great as well! I should note that the scale does not matter, just the general shape.
Group theory is all about symmetries. Can this be seen from the axioms defining a group? Or equivalently can the group axioms be motivated from this point of view? Of course one can look at several examples and check that the group axioms are fulfilled, nevertheless this doesn't make clear why the axioms have to be precisly like they are. Any ideas would be much appreciated.
A few years ago I read a short little article about how big our eyes would have to be to observe microwaves (or any long-wave radiation for that matter). I don't remember enough about the article, or know enough about observing EM waves to reconstruct the equations, and I can't find the article again. So my question is simply this: is there some equation or rule of thumb that says if you want to observe ('see') a wave of length x, then your observing tool ('eyes') have to be such and such a size?
I am currently doing a one semester course on groups and rings where we have learned about (so far): Definitions of groups, subgroups, cyclic and normal subgroups, the symmetric group, homomorphisms, isomorphisms, The Correspondence Theorem, Product and Quotient Groups. As of yesterday's lecture we learned about the First Isomorphism Theorem and a little bit about rings. By the end of the course we should have done rings, endomorphisms, The Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem and subjects which I am not sure about. I am wondering if this would be sufficient to start Atiyah Macdonald; I have opened the first few pages and it looks hard. For those who have done it, what do you think are the prerequisites before doing this? Perhaps something like Herstein's Topics in Algebra? Thanks.
I've noticed people use (in speech) the word godness for "feminine god", e.g.: Oh my godness! However, in classic texts it is goddess, e.g. Shakespeare's "King Lear": Hear, nature, hear; dear goddess, hear! Suspend thy purpose, if thou didst intend To make this creature fruitful! Into her womb convey sterility! It is my understanding that godness can be an urban slang for "divinity", but not for an impersonated deity. Is godness just a mistake?
I am trying to understand pure and mixed states better. If I have N quantum particles in an isolated system. The many-particle state is a superposition of the product of single-particle states by the appropriate statistics (bosons, fermions, or distinguishable). Would this state be still considered pure since there is no interaction with the environment? Does that mean isolated systems or microcanonical ensembles are always pure?
I have studied that topologically equivalent metrics produce the same open and closed sets. They also produce same compact and connected subsets. Does it mean that topologically equivalent metrics have same open, closed or compact subsets? In what context topologically equivalent metrics differ from each other? Intutively, how can we explain topologically equivalent metrics? Can we say that two topologically equivalent metrics have same topological properties? Thanks and regards
If you were going to teach you kids programming and asked me what book to use as a guide, I would recommend you either Java programming for kids or Python for kids. But what if I want to teach kids math including derivatives, integrals, differential equations, set theory, etc? What book can provide me with a road map I can use (assuming kids are smart enough to learn what I give them)?
I am a beginning graduate student with (almost) no background in algebraic geometry. I would like to learn the proof of the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields, including all prerequisites. I am looking for books to get me there. I am not necessarily looking for the quickest way, but rather for self-contained well-written books that will get me to this result. Nevertheless, I prefer to be focused and study only the needed prerequisites in the adequate generality (in particular, I'm focusing on the case of curves, rather than more general varieties). (my knowledge in group theory, field theory, and algebraic number theory is equivalent to what appears in J.S. Milne's notes, but as mentioned - I have almost no background in algebraic geometry).
This question is related to another question. If we have a Riemann surface with punctures of negative Euler characterstisc, how can one define a complete hyperbolic metric? I know that in this case the universal cover is the hyperbolic plane and it has a complete metric. Do we project this metric to the puntured surface? If so, why is it complete? I will deeply appreciate if somebody gives an example or a good reference.
I'm not sure of the name of this problem so haven't really been able to research it. I have a complete weighted graph with a start and end node and n distinct sets of nodes (lets call them red, blue and green), each with m member nodes. I need to find the shortest path from start to end and must pass through exactly one red, one blue and one green node; is there an algorithm for this? An extension would be that I need to find the shortest path while visiting blue first, then green, then red (again, exactly once each); is there one for this?
Let's say for example: Two people sing the same note (frequency) and volume (amplitude) together. Why is it that the two persons sound louder than they would individually? I would imagine that since the traverse waves generated by the two persons would randomly be louder or softer, based on the phase shift between the two sound waves. But that hypothesis is obviously untrue since in the real world a choir is clearly louder than a soloist.
What is the exact word for someone who always pretends to be nice to someone's face but makes fun of them behind their back? When they are talking to you, they'll treat you very well, like a good-mannered person. They care a lot about their image in front of others and show a positive image of themselves in front of an audience. But they are not actually good in their heart. Any word except hypocrite.
How do you say to someone that you will reuse a sentence (or a joke) you've just heard from them, as-is, because you liked it a lot ? In Italian we say "Questa me la rivendo", that translated is "I'm gonna resell that one" (ri-vendo / re-sell is the idiomatic part, the other words could be recombined / replaced). I can't find anything in the web, so... what is the English version ?
I'm looking for a noun for a person to convey two things: their particularly keen appreciation of aesthetics, and their ability to create aesthetically appealing objects. For example, Steve Jobs. A man with a famously keen sense of what is beautiful, at every level, be it user interface design, the connectors on cables or the stairs at retail stores. The closest I've got is "aesthetician", but that conveys more the study of aesthetics, rather than the appreciation and ability to craft aesthetic perfection. Any ideas?
I work for a client at the rate of X USD (United State Dollars) per hour. Recently, he accidentally paid me at the rate of Y USD per hour. Y is greater than X. I notified him of his mistake and he replied with the following sentence:- Go ahead and keep the difference to be applied to the next round of work you do for us. What does this mean? Should I accept the payment at the rate of Y USD per hour or correct it to X USD per hour?
Recently I've wondered about two idioms which have a strange relationship. Come Hell or high water and Lord willing and the creek don't rise Grammatical accuracy, alternative formulations, and questionable folk etymologies, and literal meanings aside, why do these two phrases (often used interchangably) have such different implications? My thoughts so far have centered around the former being an expression of an internal locus of control (i.e. I will make this happen) and the latter of an external locus of control (i.e. I hope this won't not happen). Why does the more apparently positive formulation reference Hell while the less (certainly) positive one mentions the 'Lord?'
I always have doubts whether to use a singular or a plural noun when I refer to certain peoples. For example, we say Americans, Italians, Brazilians, Russians and Austrians. But we say The British, The English, The Portuguese, The French, The Spanish, The Chinese, and The Irish. When it comes to those nationals I rarely hear of, I'm never sure. These would include people from countries such as Azerbaijan, Armenia or Kenya. Is there any rule as to whether we should use singular or plural ?
I have come across many hand dryers that attempt to dry your hands really fast after you wash them. Here are two of them: XLERATOR http://www.exceldryer.com/ Dyson Airblade http://www.dysonairblade.com/homepage.asp So I guess I have a ridiculously high standard cause I think even these are too slow. Would it be possible to create a large static electric field to attract the water molecules off of your hand? Can someone offer some ideas that would remove the water off of your hand using some type of electric field generated by charged plates or something?
I am a high schooler who really likes math, and I am interested in pursuing it in my undergraduate years. I have a basic facility with proofs, and I am currently exploring several different areas of math (analysis, graph theory, and topology). I am interested in seeing if I can contribute to mathematics even if it has no applications, mathematical or otherwise, however most areas of math don't seem to have any "low hanging fruit" so to speak, so I'm looking for a different, more obscure area where I can learn all that is known, and maybe contribute myself.
Prove or Disprove: If V is any vector space and with an orthonormal basis B for a subspace W of V, then V has an orthonormal basis C with B as a subset of C. First Question: Can you have an orthonormal basis for any vector space or can you only have an orthonormal basis for inner product spaces? Second Question: Does it also make a difference whether or not V is finite-dimensional or infinite-dimensional?
I always find it difficult to discuss the meaning of a word because I don't really have a definite meaning of word in my head. Cook refers to the verb (to cook) but it can also refer to the noun (a cook). Would you say cook is one word with multiple meanings or that the verb and the noun are separate words? Is a word simply the arrangement of the letters?
I'm trying to come up with some math problems (word or otherwise) that get to the meaning of adding zero, but I'm getting stuck because it seems just too simple to me. I have come up with questions like "John is having a birthday party and he invites five friends over but nobody shows up. How many people are at the party?". While this question gets to the problem at hand, it might be too simple to understand the meaning of adding zero. This problem also suffers from the possibility that first graders will answer like so, "Well there would be three people at the party because John's mom and dad would be there too." Any ideas?
As the title says. For example, if I take a fat metal wire with non-negligible thickness, and then wind it into a spiral, but such that none of the parts touch one another (there are no topological 'holes'), then if I add a charge to the wire, would it equally distribute over the wire? Or would the charges from neighboring 'loops' of the spiral interact with one another somehow, similar to a capacitor almost?
Outside of your field of research / application, how much of your undergrad education have you retained? Thought experiment: How would you fare today if handed old exams from your introductory topology / number theory / differential equations / whatever classes? No studying or preparation. I've always wondered how much of this material one should expect to have internalized, and how much is acceptable to forget over time and need a reference aid.
In Mac OS X, the home/end keys per default throw you at the beginning/end of the document instead of the beginning/end line. I have changed my system key bindings to get the latter, "usual" (Windows- and Linux-like) behavior. However, texmaker seems to ignore this setting. It is horribly distracting when I have to search for my editing position in a longer text each time after unconsciously hitting the end key. I did not find these commands in the "configure texmaker" dialog. Is there a way to persuade texmaker to respect the system key bindings, or can I modify the setting in texmaker individually?
On the new Astronomy.SE site, I was having a short discussion on one of my answers. The basic discrepancy was; can MACHOs like black holes/brown dwarfs/neutron stars be termed "dark matter"? My reasoning is that these objects do not radiate EM radiation on their own but they do gravitate, and thus constitute a small part of the total dark matter in the universe. I agree that there is a lot of dark matter which doesn't In other words, can the term "dark matter" be applied to nonradiating (or faintly radiating) bodies which still participate in the electromagnetic interaction (baryonic or otherwise)? Or is it necessary for all dark matter to not interact electromagnetically?
It is quite common to hear in newspapers and television about the increasing temperature, i.e. global warming. But I am interested in something else. How does global warming affect the internal energy of the earth, or else how does this change the gravitational potential energy of a point mass and the earth? This is a open question and everyone should feel free to make any plausible assumptions in estimating the increase or decrease. I thought of global warming as causing the expansion of the atmosphere, possibly changing mass distribution of Earth's atmosphere.
In my school and university I was taught to say "Not at all" or "Don't mention it" in response to "Thank you!". Now I rarely hear these phrases used, but rather something like "You're welcome", "It's OK", "My pleasure", or "No problem". My real life conversation experience is very poor. I often listen to some English learning podcasts, and watch some films in English. So I listen to dialogs, which are probably not from the modern real life world. How do native English speakers tend to respond to "Thank you!" now? What I should care about, when choosing from the available options?
Are there any big controversies in contemporary mathematical research? Other domains contain big controversial research topics (for example string theory in physics). The specific nature of mathematics however, makes me suspect that there isn't much room for any serious disagreement, or at least less room in comparison..? Is this intuition right, or completely ignorant and absurd? --- This is not a question about mathematics per se, but more a question about the people doing it. I hope the question is still appropriate in this stackexchange. ----
If for some reason I want to create the lightest document (in terms of the weight of the output file, not the font), what would be some good practices? Specifically in terms of: Packages: do they add significant weight to the file? Are there some which are particularly heavy? Graphics: should they be EPS, PDF? Some other format? Is TIKZ code always lighter? Classes: do some add more bulk than others? (Some other important things I'm sure I'm missing...) Of course I could just start trying to "play" with the above mentioned elements, but I was hoping to get an informed answer, not just the result of trial-and-error experiments.
From The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford: Ed Miller: I was with a girl once. Wasn't a squaw, but she was purty. She had yellow hair, like uh... oh, like something. Dick Liddil: Like hair bobbed from a ray of sunlight? What does bobbed mean in this context? I guess it means "cut", but I would like a native speaker to verify.
I am aware of the idiom like a fish out of water. What intrigued me is an article using like a fish takes to water. Teo Zhen Ren, the swimming sensation from Singapore, took to swimming like a fish takes to water. Is like a fish takes to water a valid usage? Is it an idiom? I thought the usual phrase was like a duck takes to water.
Is there a systematic treatment of (finite dimensional) manifolds with corners in the literature which carefully introduces all usual differential topological notions (submanifolds, embeddings, etc.) and which includes proofs of the usual statements in geometric topology like the existence of collars or isotopy extension theorems in the generality of manifolds with corners? Most of the common textbooks treat the case without corners nor boundary and mention the case of boundaries. Some of them take care of boundaries more closely, but I am not aware of a detailed reference covering the situation with corners.
I have to translate a Washington Post article on Trump but I cannot understand one part: It's post-policy politics. It's about having the right feelings instead of the right proposals. Now, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't point out when he's contradicting himself or when his plans don't add up. But it does mean that we should probably be a little less credulous about this supposed policy pivot or that change in message. There has to be one for that to happen.
It's logical to think that the time it takes a microwave to heat the food would be proportional to the mass heated. But since a microwave is based on dielectric heating, I think that if you increase the mass of food there will be more water, which will heat the food faster (due to thermalization). Is this reasoning right? Is there an optimal quantity of food to heat and the time it takes?
If I had a rigid body, such as a wardrobe, so that its centre of mass is above the ground and I tilt it slightly. I have read that the normal force of the floor on the wardrobe must be equal and opposite to the weight of the object as we have no translational motion. However if I let the wardrobe topple over, its centre of mass is now lower. How can the centre of mass have changed positions if the normal force and weight are equal and opposite to oppose any translational motion?
Why doesn't a plane wave solution represent a single photon? And what is meant by the quantum-mean field being zero? EDIT: This post is an extension to a previous post I made asking about the photon in QFT. I was asked by the person helping me to start a new question so he can respond in the form of an "answer" post and thereby keeping all "answers" on topic. The link is here Quantum State of Photon Question
The mechanical advantage is given by MA = Load/Effort which is quite universal (at least in my short experience with them). However when i reviewed over the mechanical advantage of simple machines, especially levers , the formula for mechanical advantage stunned me, instead of MA = Distance of Fulcrum to Load / Distance of Fulcrum to Effort it was instead MA = Distance of Fulcrum to Effort/ Distance of Fulcrum to Load Does this not contradict what the MA formula is? Thank you for your time
There must be a name for this sort of after-the-fact non-argument. Sorry, this is the only way I could find to describe it. Debbie finds a kitten. Kitten has been burned over half its body, but it's alive. Debbie says, 'The kitten wants to live!' and takes it to a vet. Bob says, 'The kitten is suffering and will continue to suffer horribly, the kindest thing would be to euthanize her.' Debbie refuses; the kitten continues to suffer for months but in the end manages to survive. Bob says, 'The kitten suffered unnecessarily.' Debbie then says to Bob, 'The kitten would now be dead had it been up to you. You have no respect for life.'
In a crystalline solid each atomic level 'splits' into n levels (n = number of atoms in the system). When the number of atoms is large each level becomes replaced by a band of closely spaced levels. In a semi-conductor we have an empty "conduction band" and a fully occupied "valance band". Conductivity arises because electrons get excited to the conduction band. Question: Why can't electron in the valence band freely move around and therefore conduct electricity? My question also applies to metals where the conduction band is already half-filled. What's special about this conduction band that allows electron to move around freely?
According to the popular Solar System formation models, what are the bounds on the Gas Giants' cores (note I am only interested in the bounds for our Solar System). For example according to Wikipedia on Jupiter Assuming [a core] did exist, it may have shrunk as convection currents of hot liquid metallic hydrogen mixed with the molten core and carried its contents to higher levels in the planetary interior. This suggests that a core would shrink over time, which would put an upper bound on the size today. Are there other bounds? I would like numbers together with some reasons for those numbers.
I have two books on algebra where one makes the definition of isomorphism to be a bijective homomorphism, while the other makes it as an injective homomorphism. I am doing the exercises from one book and learning from the other (not optimal I know), and so I am wondering what definition is considered the convention. If both are conventionally okay, is something lost by removing the surjective part of the bijection and if so what? I realise it's a rather uninteresting question, but if someone has the time I would appreciate the answer. Thank you!
I'm trying to draw a chain of arrows going under and above each other, as depicted: The issue isn't labelling the arrows, I can easily do that, but I don't know how to get them to curl, have the arrow head in the middle (ideally, though not necessary), and have one on top of the other. Any help is appreciated. If a solution exists without TikZ, I would prefer it. For those interested, the above is an eigenvector of the Cartan generators of a Lie algebra acting on a state as a raising or lowering operator, used in the roots and weights method to classify all semi-simple compact Lie algebras.