darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I've been looking around about LCD monitors, and how they polarise light. When a pixel needs to be black, the light is "twisted" so that it can't go through the polarising sheet in front. What happens to this light? Does it relfect back into the screen? Surely that would mean the screen would get quite hot if you leave it on a black image for a while? (but I've never noticed that happen). What happens to the energy (from the electricity used to create the light) when it's blocked by polarisation.
I'm currently converting my thesis into LaTeX, and i have an issue: being an IT thesis, I have tons of code quotes. The problem is not about the blocks of code: they are not that many and i can wrap them with {verbatim} tags. The problem is about the millions of inline single terms which should be formatted the same way. Is there a way, for example, to define a macro or shortcut or whatever which, is i select one word and click it, automatically wraps it with {verbatim} (or equivalent) tags? Hope I've been clear. This could really spare me hours of tedious work, thank You in advance!
I am writing a novel and am constantly trying to figure out how to describe the action when someone gives a sort of small cough or a quick "huh" in agreement. I suppose it would be the non-word equivalent of "I'll say" or "You think?" To be specific, I'll use it in a dialogue. "He must really hate Ian, then." Clarissa [insert word here]. "Yes." It's usually used when the speaker is trying to convey that the subject is much more serious than their conversation partner is taking it.
There are many kinds of integrals, with the most famous being the Riemann integral which is taught in elementary calculus classes. The motivation behind the Riemann integral is to find the area between curves by using rectangles of infinitely small width. When i first studied calculus, i was fascinated by this formulation and thought it was indeed ingenious. My question is: what are the limitations of the riemann integral? What could be the link or the motivation to be able to "create" new ones like lebesgue, or darboux?
Heard an English teacher claim that: "Dogs is not my cup of tea" is correct; whereas "Dogs are not my cup of tea" is incorrect. The explanation was that the verb form of 'to be' must agree with the singular noun 'cup' and not the plural noun 'dogs'. Checked Google on this and it appears that this is an extreme minority opinion at best. Nonetheless, can the teacher's argument be authoritatively refuted, or must this person be allowed to continue impressing pupils with their dubious insider's knowledge of the English tongue?
I took my son to a science museum where they had a solenoid oriented vertically with a plastic cylinder passing through the solenoid. An employee dropped an aluminum ring over the top of the cylinder when there was no current going through the solenoid. Then they turned on the current going through the solenoid and they aluminum ring went flying up and off the top of the solenoid. What law of electro-magnetics causes the force on the aluminum ring?
While studying Electrostatics, I was wondering about whether a charged sphere gains or loses mass while just adding electrons? If it is possible then the negatively charged sphere will have more mass than positively charged sphere, but according to me I think that since the mass of electron is so negligible then there must be no change in mass just because of electrons. So is it possible or not ?
For a paper I'm writing, I need a bit of second order logic in order to convey a few steps in an inference. I've completed the introductory and intermediate/advanced logic classes at my school (second order logic wasn't included in the curriculum, unfortunately). I use predicate logic in most of my classes, so I'm comfortable with it. I'd like to learn just enough to properly notate the steps of the inference. Is there a concise tutorial on the subject available online?
As far as I know, whenever we talk about a black hole, we refer to a static or stationary solution to Einstein field equations. I know the formation of a black hole can be discussed by the numerical GR, but I have never saw an analytical solution which can describe the formation of a black hole. So do anybody know that there actually exists such solution which has power to describe the formation of a black hole? Even the simplest case, for example, the spherical symmetric collapse of radiation into black hole can satisfy me very well.
In Chemistry, an amount of energy has to be supplied for a reaction to occur. This energy, known as the "activation energy", breaks up the bonds between molecues in the substance. It is equivalent to the total bond energy of the reactants. However, in high school I learnt that the energy required to start a nuclear reaction is the difference between the binding energy of the reactants and the binding energy of the products. Why is it that the minimum required energy is not the binding energy of the reactants, similar to a chemical reaction?
Which are the differences between Polar curve and Nyquist plot in System Control Theory? I wasn't able to figure it out myself. Are they the same thing? As googling for these two concept returned similar plots, but from the theory I can't find any similarities between them, or I am not able to understand how they are related to each other? Edit: Even though I edited this after more than two years from posting it, I just realized that the terminology that is used at my university, Nyquist plot and Polar Curve mean the same thing.
I am curious about the vibration of metal objects as a sign of an impending lightening strike. This is apparently a common occurrence; so much so that a quick google search will yield many pages instructing people to head for shelter if their keys (other other small metal objects) start to vibrate in the midst of an electrical storm. One climbing site even mentions that a vibrating rope is a sign of a lightening strike. Can someone explain the mechanism behind this? My guess is that it a piezo electric effect, though this contradicts my (limited) understanding that atmospheric electricity is static. Thanks :)
I collected the following "top eight" text books on computability (in alphabetical order): Boolos et al., Computability and Logic Cooper, Computability Theory Davis, Computability and unsolvability Hermes, Enumerability, decidability, computability Hopcroft et al., Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation (thanks to Bill Province) Kleene, Introduction to Metamathematics Minsky, Computation Sipser, Introduction to the Theory of Computation(thanks to Prajwal Kansakar) I know it's opinion-based, but which important text books did I miss?
I would like to get the formula on how to calculate the distance between two geographical co-ordinates on earth and heading angle relative to True North. Say from New York to New Dehli , I draw a straight line THROUGH THE EARTH - as they were two points in space. How can I calculate that angle from say New York to New Dehli if I was to draw a straight line through the surface of the earth . What kind of mathematical calculation/formula would be involved in order to do that?
There are three Sakharov conditions of baryogenesis: CP symmetry violation. Baryon number conservation violation. Thermodynamical equilibrium violation. In SM the first one is satisfied by CKM phases, the second one is satisfied by instanton-like transitions for zero temperature and sphaleron-like transitions for non-zero temperatures. As for the third one, I've thought that EW phase transition provides violation of equilibrium, but after reading Gorbunov and Rubakov book "Introduction to the Theory of the Early Universe: Hot Big Bang Theory" I've started to doubt. They write that this transition is of second type one; thus it doesn't provide sufficient thermodynamical equilibrium violation. So can EW phase transition provide baryogenesis?
I'm interested in the following question: I want to visit where my grandmother was born. To me it seems like a noun clause because I could replace the clause with a noun. For example: I want to visit Ireland. Is this the correct way to check? The definition I read for an adverbial clause states that Adverbial clauses of place modify the main verb in the sentence and provide information about the place that an action takes place. This definition has confused me about the difference between a noun clause and an adverbial clause. How about the following sentences: We can go wherever you want. You can show me where it is. Thanks for your help. Patrick.
I can calculate the derivative of a function using the product rule, chain rule or quotient rule. When I find the resulting derivative function however, I have no way to check if my answer is correct! How can I check if the calculated derivative equation is correct? (ie I haven't made a mistake factorising, or with one of the rules). I have a graphics calculator. Thanks!
I am teaching English to my cousin, but I am not sure how to explain phrasal verbs correctly. For example "take off". I explain it as two words but a single entity. When I ask her to name a verb in the sentence The plane is taking off, I expect to hear "to take off", not "to take". Do I understand this concept correctly? Update: In the sentence "She put her hands around her hear and squeaked." Is "put around" a phrasal verb or there are separate verb and preposition?
Does the demonstratives refer to the next word or previously mentioned statement? The medieval center is Prague Castle and St. Vitus Cathedral. An evening view of these illuminated landmarks is one of the most memorable sights in Europe. In the above sentence, does these refer to "Prague Castle and St. Vitus Cathedral" or to the "illuminated landmarks"? I'm a little confused about this. A clear explanation would be great. Also, what's the difference between demonstrative determiners and demonstrative pronouns?
Full disclosure: I'm taking my first complex analysis course as a graduate student and the title of my question looks like a dumb question to me. In any case, there's a problem in my book that deals with a sequence of "holomorphic polynomials" converging to a "holomorphic polynomial". Is this just a redundancy or is there some weird world where certain polynomials aren't (complex) differentiable?
Imagine two entangled quantum particles in the singlet state, one held by Alice and the other by Bob. Alice and Bob are both widely separated. Bob measures his spin in some axis and finds it to be up (say). And that puts his particle now into the prepared state of spin up. Entanglement means Alice, if she were to do a similar measurement would find spin down. But assume Alice does not actually do any measurement. So does Bob doing his measurement mean that Alice's particle has immediately and spontaneously collapsed into a prepared state of spin down? Or is the state of her unmeasured particle unchanged? The literature, and popular press, are both vague and inconsistent on this seemingly important point.
About a month ago I posted this question about eigendecomposition of a special matrix; and I received an answer. This is not my main field of study and I came to this as part of the proof for a method I developed to address a bioinformatics problem. Now I am interested to learn more about this area. Could anyone suggest some references and relevant literature that I can read. Moreover, I may end up publishing my method. How should I acknowledge and cite the stackexchange users/website ?
Suppose you have a set A which has the same cardinality with real numbers R, which means |A| = |R|. Also suppose that you have a finite set B , which of course has finite cardinality. Also suppose A is a proper subset of A union B, I mean there are some objects which are not an element of A but they are an element of B. Now is the cardinality of A union B greater than the cardinality of real numbers, also if so is this cardinality of A union B equal to cardinality of the power set of real numbers ?
I often find myself in the situation of wanting to capitalize the phrase "Enterprise IT" due to its frequency of reference as the title of my industry. It feels appropriate when I write: "In Enterprise IT ..." "The Enterprise IT industry..." I would not be surprised if my capitalization is off here. Could one of you help me with a definitive answer to the argument?
Forgive me if this is a non-question, but I could not find anything regarding this. I only know parts of GR, and I am not familiar with the math. Since energy and matter density curve spacetime, does this mean that when entropy increases, spacetime curvature flattens? Hypothetically, if the universe is destined to reach total entropy and be in equilibrium, would this mean that the spacetime curvature of the universe be mostly flat?
I am interested in the history of functions. Why did Euler introduce them? When and why did they become central to mathematics? I know the second question has something to do with the famous Fourier-Cauchy dispute over the heat equation, but don't have any sense of the details. By the way, I'm asking because I would like to give a short, historically informed explanation to high school students why functions are important.
When a trap is set up to be active, is it "sprung" or "unsprung"? I'm confused by the ambiguity of the verb "spring". That is, a trap that is set up and active could be "sprung" in the sense that a spring is compressed and ready to launch, but it could also be "unsprung" in the sense that it hasn't yet sprung to action because its spring force has yet to be released. And after a victim walks into the trap and causes it to spring, the same ambiguity (in my mind) seems to apply.
My dad's an author (English books with some Arabic) and until recently has been using WordPerfect for DOS for all his writing. He's been moving to Word and hates the lack of control he has compared to WP. I'm looking for options and LaTeX seems to be a good one. Here are the things I'd like to be able to do: Arabic inline text Support for chapters (as separate files) Support for ebook output (epub/mobi) Cross platform environment (Mac and Windows) Some way to move from WP and Word Is this realistic with LaTeX, and what would be the best way to start for a newbie?
I've read 'Axiomatic Set Theory' by Patrick Suppes, and one thing I've noticed throughout is that he seems to be obsessed with definitions, and he tries to allow for urelements. Is this standard for ZFC? I thought in general when we say 'set' in ZFC we really mean 'pure set', and so avoid having to worry about individuals. In addition I've never seen such a fuss over definitions in any other mathematical book I've read, is this something I should get used to in Set Theory? If this is not standard, can anyone direct me to a book similar to Suppes' which builds (from the axioms) all the usual set theoretical structures needed for other areas of mathematics that is?
I quite frequently use a word that sounds like "shtook", to mean, trouble with the law or other authorities, as in, "You'll be in dead shtook if you do that" or "you'll be in real shtook if you don't finish your homework", but I have never seen it written, and don't know how it is spelt. Can anyone shed some light on the matter. A search like this doesn't get very far; the real dictionaries don't recognise it and the Urban Dictionary here has only a typically obscene interpretation not in the least bit like I remember it.
I am undergraduate in economics. As you may know, most prestigious departments in economics now require their aspirants to have taken Real Analysis (and Linear Algebra, too) before entering their programs. I have time to take these courses but don't know whether any college will give admission in their math program to an econ undergrad. I don't know whether distance learning courses will help me. Can anyone suggest me how to take math courses? Your replies will oblige me.
I am learning Fourier transforms, Z transforms etc. in Digital Signal Processing and I can work easily with integrals. However, I don't understand how a Fourier transform converts time domain signals to frequency domain signals or why it is invertible. I also have a very basic understanding of linear algebra, not suitable for fourier analysis. I looked up books on fourier analysis but they don't explain anything I don't already know. So should the next logical step be to learn spectral analysis? Also, which books would you recommend for linear algebra? I already know matrices, eigenvectors, but not Hilbert spaces.
I was watching a TV show, and this girl said: I just wish that once, I'd bring a guy home that they actually liked. Shouldn't it be like this? : I just wish that once, I'd bring a guy home that they actually like. Didn't she mean 'I wish they'd like my future boyfriends'? I think this is OK: I just wish that once, I brought a guy home that they actually liked. But the way she said it sounds strange to me.
I am writing an article for a magazine about my visit to my village. I want to use a better word or phrase for 'my village' or 'my native place'. The following is the part 'When i heard of stories of hardships and suffering from my grandparents I realized how fortunate I was to live in the city I now call home. When the day came to visit "my village/my native place", I felt uncertain and nervous..' And better word or phrase to make the content more appealing?
In Euclidean space, There is a classic Theorem claims that: The length of every rectifiable curve can be approximated by sufficiently small straight line segment with ends on the curve. Now, The question is that: Is there a similar thing happen on plane of constant curvature? I.e., Can the length of every rectifiable curve on the plane of constant curvature be approximated by sufficiently small geodesic line segment?
In any cubic meter of space in our solar system there is predicted to be some amount of dark matter. Also in a cubic meter of space is a known average amount of cosmic ray energy. What is the ratio of cosmic ray energy to dark matter energy in our solar system? I'm curious if they are on the same order of magnitude or far from it.
Imagine two charges A and B separated by some distance. Charge A emits a photon which is absorbed by charge B. Is the recoil momentum received by charge A always equal and opposite to the momentum gained by charge B? Is this true both for static Coulomb fields and radiation fields from accelerating charges? I suppose there is no momentum "left over" in the EM field after the interaction so that all the momentum lost by A is absorbed by B. Is this how it works?
I have always thought it acceptable to say and write, "She looked at me disgusted." However, I know some consider it ungrammatical, saying it must instead be either "She looked at me disgustedly" or "She looked at me, disgusted." Please give me your opinions and explanations as to whether any of the foregoing sentences must be deemed grammatically wrong. Briefly, my own analysis is as follows. It is correct to say, "She looked disgusted." So why would it be incorrect to say "She looked at me disgusted"? (She was disgusted while looking at me--or, she was looking at me while disgusted.)
In "Pragmmatic Programmer" by David Hunt and Andy Thomas, there is a sentence: Do you ever watch old black-and-white war movies? To my best english grammar knowledge, present perfect tense should be used here: Have you ever watched black-and-white war movies? Is the version of the authors correct? If so, what's the difference between these two variants and what is the appropriate way to use each? PS. I checked this sentence in the translation of the book in my native language and it was translated exactly as if the orginal sentence was in present perfect form.
I read here that there is a general rule to write an adjective order. But I didn't find any explanation if the rule has a specific order for colours, especially for primary colours. This may sound stupid but I'm just wondering. I mean is it preferable to say: red and white flowers Or: white and red flowers Or is there really no grammatical rule to obey?
I heard an interesting argument from a colleague recently that went something like this. Whenever we are using an axiom scheme, we are essentially choosing one of the instances of this scheme, and hence, whether or not we include the axiom of choice in our axioms, we are implicitly using some kind of choice principle to choose that instance. My gut feeling is that this argument seems fishy, but also interesting, and I lack the expertise to give a good answer. My question is whether this argument holds or not, and whether it makes a difference if the axiom scheme is uncountable. I realise that the question is somewhat vague, but I hope there can be some interesting answers anyway.
An isomorphism indicates that two structures are the same, using different names for the elements. Therefore it's obvious that every (algebraic) property of the first structure must be present in the second. However, homomorphisms only indicate that the two structures are "similar", so it's not quite as obvious that every property will be preserved. Yet all the properties I've ever seen are preserved under homomorphism: commutativity, cyclicality, solvability... What are some examples of properties of algebraic structures not preserved under homomorphism? Feel free to use any algebraic structures you like, but I'm particularly interested in your garden variety structures: group and rings, say.
This is potentially a very stupid question but I'm going to ask it anyway. With all these huge buildings such as the Abu Dhabi Mosque, where an unbelievable amount of materials such as marble was moved from one side of the earth to the other, is it possible that if we 'shift enough stuff' that we could change the earths centre of gravity, and potentially alter its orbit?
There is no "action at a distance" in nature. Attraction of a piece of iron by a magnet, attraction between distant electric charges of opposite sign, have to be mediated by something. The virtual particles are proposed as an explanation. If they have an observable effect, it seems like they must exist. If so, why do we call them virtual? It can't be that they have short lifetimes, as there are short-lived particles (resonances) that we don't call "virtual." On the other hand, some people say that the so-called virtual particles only exist on paper, or that they are just a technique to help us handle our equations. So what is the meaning of the word "virtual" here? Do these particles really exist, or not?
Why it is said that the Microchannel Plates can be operated in vacuum? What is the maximum pressure in which it can be operated? Also, while it is not operating, should it be kept in vacuum? Is this because the semiconducting property of the channels can be affected by the atmospheric pressure? Or while operating the gas molecules can be ionized and burn the detector?
A friend of mine corrected my sentence but I couldn't understand it. Just hoping someone can explain it properly for a non English speaker. My sentence is: "Finally your passport GOT ready for pickup" My friend (native English speaker) corrected it to: "Finally your passport IS ready for pickup" Or "Finally your passport got processed and is ready for pickup" Why can't i use "got ready" in the above sentence just like in sentences "We got ready for bed", "Alpha team got ready to play" Thanks in advance.
I'm looking for a single word to indicate a point in time which is either the beginning or end of an event. Edit, for a better example: A bell rings at the start a round of boxing. A bell rings at the end of a round of boxing. Assuming the bell rings at no other times, we can say the bell always rings at the BLANK of a round. Currently, for BLANK, I'm using the phrase "start or end." It feels clunky. I'd like to replace it with a single word, if possible.