darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
We have terms like 'high culture' and 'high art'. They are used to describe things deemed of a higher quality, or held in higher esteem, than products of popular culture. We also have terms like 'art music' and 'art film'. What I'm looking for is a similar term to describe literature. Like high literature or art book or art novel, none of which I've heard being used. For example, we can say: John wouldn't like Transformers. He only watches art films. But what about: Harry wouldn't like Tom Clancy. He only reads ..... (what?)
I'm looking for a way to truncate outliers in a time-series graph. Some context: I'm plotting two different metrics on a single graph. It's important to understand what portion of "Metric A" takes up respective to "Metric B". "Metric B" can at times spike to a high value thus increasing the Y-Axis scale which then minimizes the visibility of Metric "A". Are there any good formulas that help normalize this data or visual treatments that can make the graphic honest as well as accessible? See screenshot for more context. The blue area is "Metric B". Thanks!
Context: I'm programming a system for exams, each exam has people on it, in the industry we would call one of these people a 'Delegate'. Unfortunately in the programming language c# 'Delegate' is a reserved word and I can't really use it without my code looking terrible. I need a word to represent a person who will be on an exam. A colleague suggested ExamSitter but I think that might have been tongue-in-cheek
How does quantum electrodynamics actually explain HOW reflection occurs on a microscopic scale? Note that Feynman's QED lecture series/book is not sufficient, as he only assumes that light DOES reflect ('turn around and go back') in order to expound his path integral theory. My question is why does light have the propensity to turn around in the first place. Is it just the absorption and re-emission of photons, and if so, why does it happen so uniformly (i.e. on a shiny thing, entire scenes are reflected near-perfectly). In essence, why are flat things shiny? Are all the molecules arranged at exactly the same angle?
I'm not very advanced in LaTeX. I don't know what e.g. XeLaTeX or LaTeX->dvipdfmx are. I only use ShareLaTeX and used to use Overleaf. I need to be able to insert thumbnails in a document which when clicked would display their bigger version in a popup or something. This gif is a perfect example of what I want to achieve. Is it possible to achieve something like that in one of the mentioned sites? If so, how? (if there's a way to achieve it online but on a different site, I'm still interested)
According to Wikipedia, the past tense (and past participle) of the verb to output is either output or outputted. Are these two forms entirely interchangeable? Or do they have certain nuance in meaning or context (e.g. in programming one of the forms is preferred)? Instead of correct results, my program output/outputted garbage. Which one should I choose? My logical sense tells me output is better because it derives from put, but intuitively I tend to use outputted when I speak and don't have time to think.
So one of the exercises I am doing is to prove (or disprove) that 'Every compact set on a metric space is bounded'. Verbally, I can 'prove' this by simply stating: "If the every compact set on a metric space is not bounded, then there exists an infinite number of open covers, and if something is compact, there are only a finite number of open covers. This is a contradiction, and thus every compact set on a metric space is bounded." Two questions: is this argument right? And if so, how to I learn how to represent this formally?
I've heard people using this idiom, such as "each day is better than the next", or "you hope that each experience you have is better than the next" (heard this one on a TV show not long ago), apparently in a positive way. However, if taken literally, I find the meaning very negative - if the current thing is better than the next, then the next thing must be worse, so things would just keep getting worse and worse. How do you explain this phrase/idiom?
Linkin Park sings "wash the poison from off my skin" in Castle of Glass. Shawn Mendes sings "ripping all the skin from off my bones" in Mercy. As far as I can remember these are the only two occasions where I have heard that expression. To me it sounds like it should be "off from" (if at all). Is this normal, or did the artists just do it to get another syllable for their rhyme?
I have been on and off of this problem for three days and need to present the proof tomorrow. I am thinking that because I know for any element in the additive group of integers modulo n the order for that element is the ratio of n and the greatest common factor of that element and n then I can say,[...chirp, chirp, chirp...] and my mind goes blank. What can I say? I have also tried using the division algorithm to say the order of any element in the group can be written as a multiple of n and some other integer but I am coming up blank. There is something I do not fully understand and would like for you to point out my oversight. Thanks.
"My female cousin working for a finance company was dismissed. Disappeared along with her job were her confidence and smiling face." There is a very complicated system in Chinese for naming different relatives. For example, in Chinese, different words are used for a female cousin and a male cousin. Also, the word for an elder female cousin is different from the word for a younger one. I'm having some trouble writing this sentence in English. I used "female cousin" in the first part, to translate the word that actually means "elder female cousin" in Chinese, but it still sounds awkward. I suspect that the "female" may be redundant too, because in the second part I use the pronoun "her".
I am trying to implement Microsoft Excel's GROWTH function in JavaScript. This function calculates predicted exponential growth by using existing data. What makes it tricky is that it must work with multiple sets of known_x's values. I could not find any reference equation. Any suggestions? The part that might be relevant is the reference equation. I cross-posted the question here because someone suggested it in response to the same question originally posted on stackoverflow. Thanks in advance for your help.
I'm interested in writing a numerical integrator to solve the motion of systems of pendulums. For example, a simple case would be the double pendulum. The motion can be quite complex in general. Is there a way to determine if a system of pendulums is going to produce stiff DEs before actually trying to integrate them? Usually the masses and lengths of the pendulums are considered to be identical for the classic double pendulum system, which I suspect makes the system quite tame. But I have nothing to back that up.
I am fairly new to this so apologies for informal terminology. After I discovered what space filling curves are, I came to the conclusion that any point in any number of dimensions can be represented as a single number along a space filling curve, given that the curve covers enough space. I also imagine that it is possible to rewrite any operation on these points in terms of movements along the curve. Is this correct to assume?
I've found plenty of blog posts and papers where the authors claim that the Higgs mass divergence (usually presented with a momentum cutoff) doesn't show up under dimensional regularization. Unfortunately I've never seen a book or paper which explains this with any more detail: it's usually just stated as a fact. Is there some specific reference that people can point to for this? I'm well aware that dimensional regularization just hides the hierarchy problem until physical particles are added, but I want to include a reference to motivate the introduction of new particles without going to through dimensional regularization.
I need some assistance with a calculation I'm trying to do. I have access to surgery waiting times data (date arrived, date completed) and I want to figure out the expected waiting time for a new patient - this should take into account the number of patients already waiting and those who have completed (I think). I've tried looking at the average time to wait for the past three hours but this doesn't seem the right way to do it (too simple I think). I've also thought about perhaps looking at the average wait time for the same day of the week for a previous week...would that be sensible? There are so many variables to consider but I need something relatively simple...
People on Reddit often comment "I lost it" while quoting the funniest part of a joke to highlight how funny that part is. As I don't speak English much, I am not sure if this is Reddit-specific, but I guess not. Where does this come from? Is it related that laughing from a joke is similar to "losing your mind"? That seems far-fetched. "I lost it" would intuitively mean "the joke stops making sense here" (i.e. "I lost track of the joke here"), which is the exact opposite of what it actually means. What is the etymology of this phrase?
I've searched the question in the forum, and found the following conclusion : - "In electromagnetism, electric flux is the rate of flow of the electric field through a given area. Electric flux is proportional to the number of electric field lines going through a virtual surface. But, It doesn't make intuitive sense to me, that electric flux is just something that we can count like no. of lines, I don't think electric field is passing in lines literally, so what exactly is Electric flux? and Rate of flow suggest that it's moving like water flow in river. These ideas are difficult for me to grasp, please clarify.
I've heard mentioned in various classes that neutron stars, like superconductors, are described by BCS theory. I know that in superconductors a key element in forming cooper pairs is a net attractive force between the electrons which would normally repel one another. That attractive force is accounted for via lattice vibrations (phonons) created and "absorbed" by electrons. So my question is: what provides the attractive force between neutrons? just gravity? If it is true that neutron stars follow BCS theory, by what means was someone able to verify that?
I have to submit some paperwork for the approval of an activity. However, I have already got approval, the paperwork is only necessary to submit the specifics (the date, people involved, and other details which have already been approved) for sign-off. What is the word (or expression, but preferably a single-word) to describe this kind of action? Examples: I already have approval, so submitting this paperwork is a ____ act. I already have approval, so the paperwork is just ____. It's not "futile" as it's still necessary, I'm not "going through the motions" as I really mean it and my heart is in it, so how can I describe this paperwork?
I've been studying the representation theory of groups from Tung's "Group Theory in Physics." I understand Young symmetrizers of different Young diagrams are essentially primitive idempotents in the group algebra of the symmetric group and then all inequivalent minimal left ideals as well as all inequivalent irreducible representation can be obtained. However, the construction seems unintelligible to me, while the property of Young symmetrizers is so striking. What is the idea behind the construction?
What is the meaning of the text quoted below? In the physical world, if a system is described by an equation that is first order in time, the system is general dissipative (has energy loss). If the equation is second order in time, the system may be non dissipative. Such a system has time-reversal symmetry. Can somebody explain what it really means to be first order and second order in plain English?
I'm thinking of those old U.S. wartime movie-theater newsreels that celebrated victories, but combined with aspersions and taunts on the enemy. "We're great and those guys are idiots." Not necessarily in film format like a newsreel; maybe a printed publication. Example: The Mouth of Sauron Magazine, the ??? of Mordor, celebrates its victory at Minas Morgul and continues to mock the armies of Minas Tirith.
Several people I know were good in mathematics when they were in high school and they loved it but when they joined a university (specializing in mathematics) they felt mathematics is hard and that they were somewhat deceived because this wasn't the type of mathematics they loved and joined the university to learn. How can we overcome this problem in contemporary curricula? and why there isn't a universal mathematics curriculum? (I mean mathematics is not country-dependent like languages or history)
After reading this answer about the gravitational force I wondered how that applied to the electric force, since both have the same basic form - product of the masses or charges over distance squared. If I was in a charged metal-walled elevator that was "falling" in an electric field, would I be just as oblivious as my friend who was in another elevator falling in a gravitational field?
I asked a question on one of the stackexchange sites and one user edited a sentence I made from "We were relocating so we...." to "We were moving house so we....". As an english speaker, I have never heard of "moving house" in context of relocation in a sentence before. Presently I am even doubting if relocating is correct in the context of : "Moving all your belongings in a house you onced rented into a newly rented house"
In many mathematics texts I've seen "ordered n-tuple" appear, and in such texts, there isn't any mention of just "n-tuple". So I'm wondering: are there really cases where one writes "n-tuple" and somehow it's not ordered? If not, I'm thinking the "ordered" in "ordered n-tuple" is really not necessary and can be shortened to just "n-tuple". Please let me know if there is significance is writing "ordered n-tuple" that I'm not seeing.
I had to edit my question because I think it led to misunderstanding. For me, the definition of "immunity" is quite different from "impunity", and I know the differences. But what I don't know is that is the law the thing that draw the line? It seems to me they both refer to exemption from punishment. for example, a police officer can kill a criminal, whereas I cannot. Another example is that a diplomat raped and tortured two women but nothing happened. But if a man who has a powerful and wealthy father did that, the word impunity would be said. So, here is the question: Does only the law define the differences?
Which is the better verb to use with data: feeding or entering? Furthermore, which is more common in the literature of the field and which do people who work in the field say more often? Are they used for different kinds of input systems? If the data are automatically continuously input by a machine (e.g., the Mars probe), is feeding data used, but if the data are individually input by someone at a keyboard (e.g., entering data into a user database), is entering data used?
I want to use beamer (Madrid style) for a presentation I'm giving next week, but I am forced to use the institutional title page. That means that the whole background is filled by an image and the title itself cannot be in a coloured box. In the worst case I will have to pdftk the title page onto the presentation, but I'm sure there must be a way to force LaTeX to do it. I've tried using a PlainFrame with a TitleGraphic, but I can't get the image to stretch across the whole page the title itself will still be in a coloured box Any ideas???
My teacher made an example to explain DFA, it was about paths (URL paths), the rules were as follows: S ::= / S ::= /O O ::= [a-z] O ::= [a-z]R O ::= [a-z]S R ::= [a-z] R ::= [a-z]R R ::= [a-z]S Examples of paths could be: /foo, /foo/, foo/bar and so on. However, I don't understand why you would need the R rules since they are equal to the O rules. Can I write it without the R? If not, why?
The problem is, that I fail to unambiguously understand this phrase. There are two ways in which I can understand it (and a number of similar phrases): I may never be able to do this = It's impossible for me to ever do this ('never' negates 'may') I may never be able to do this = It's possible that I will never be able to do this. ('never' negates 'be able') Which is the correct one?
According to Newton's laws, if net force is zero on a particle then the particle is at rest or in uniform motion, and if it is not zero then it is accelerating. So when a car moves on the road, friction helps it to accelerate. If the acceleration is zero, (i.e) it is moving with constant velocity, the net external force must be zero, so friction is zero. Then with friction equal to zero how is the car moving on the road?
I have to do a final project for my PDE subject and last year I did one about Game Theory (specifically, Prisonner's Dilemma and Snowdrift game) for my ODE subject, which the rest of the students enjoyed and which my teacher thought it was a fun approach to the contents of the subject. I want to do a similar thing, but every Game Theory problem I have seen only involves ODEs. Until now we have seen first order PDEs (both linear and non-linear) and second order (hyperbolic, parabolic and elliptic) PDEs. Also wave equation and heat equation. What would be some fun PDE related problems to discuss? (I hope I put the right tags, because it is the first time I ask a soft question).
The title gives away pretty much the entire question except for the fact that the class of functions I am interested in is a subset of twice continuously differentiable functions. I think that if an odd function (defined on the whole real line) is concave on the positive real line, then it is convex on the negative real line. If it is supposed to be convex everywhere, then it is linear on the negative real line. The argument goes also the other way. So it is linear everywhere. So maybe I don't even need the monotonicity property. This is the first question I am posting here that has no equations. So I hope that is allowed. Is my reasoning correct?
Do you know if the concept of chemical potential can be properly defined for nucleons in the nuclei? I mean, if I can picture the nuclei like an interacting gas of nucleons, then may I think of a chemical potential for nucleons, similarly to the case of an electron liquid. Of course the nature of the interactions is different for the two cases. My idea is related to the liquid drop model of nuclei.
So imagine you're at the beach; you go into the water and the moment you enter the water you stop hearing anything from the outside world. The same happens vice-versa: your friend shouts at you from inside the water but you only hear the bubbles rising to the top. So the questions are: Why does that happen? Would it also happen if you used a hydrophone?
I am writing a title and I was wondering whether I can skip the second article just like you would say a pen and pencil. Can I say, "A cap and tie for Zed," or must it still be "A cap and a tie for Zed?" Have been searching the net and books for some answers but have been unsuccessful. Would appreciate a quick response from some Grammar Genius! Need clarification here to finish up my work. Thanks ya.
The usual solution to fix lines that overflow is to rewrite it. However, that hardly works with bibliography entries that experience the same problem. So what can I do to fix it? I can't rewrite anything since the information needs to be "as-is". I can't provide a minimal example because if I take the entry that overflows in my document, then the problem fixes itself as the font, font size and margins change. EDIT Even though I've accepted an answer, please submit more answers if you have a good approach for addressing this issue. Maybe it can assist someone else who have the same problem and don't want to resort to using "ragged right".
I have studied in a course several algorithms to integrate ODE's numerical: Runge-Kutta, Predictor-Corrector methods, Taylor... However the teacher failed to show which is the best for every particular situation. The only thing I know is that implicit methods are appropriate for stiff systems. But how do they compare Runge-Kutta (of any order) with predictor-corrector methods or with Taylor method? Which is best for each situation? Heuristic answers based on experience may be good enough!
I have a paper copy of some old LaTeX notes, but I lost the source file. If I scanned them as a .pdf, does any OCR software exist that could convert the scanned .pdf to LaTeX source (.tex)? I also have a paper copy of some old notes created using Microsoft Word's Equation Editor. While I am considerably less hopeful, I ask the same question -- does an OCR software exist that could convert a scanned .pdf to .tex? Thank you for your help.
I came across a problem where I have to find out the longest path in a given graph. I have list of edges ( eg.{AB, BC} ) which states there is an edge between vertices/nodes (A,B,C). Now i want to figure out the longest path possible (not repeating the vertex) such that it covers maximum nodes starting from any vertex/node. What can be the best way to solve this? I have to implement this as a program. I looked up google for Minimum Spanning Tree, Dijkstra's Alogorithms , hamiltonain path( which i think suits- but not sure ) and many more. but can't figure out what would suit best for this problem. Any help or reading references would be much appreciated.
Here is an example sentence, written by a pupil of mine: Through the British Empire, which resulted out of Britain's urge to build up its economy, Britain was connected to a lot of different countries The sentence clearly has several issues, but I am only interested in one of them here. I would only use "result from", as a native British English speaker. My pupil has one American parent and one German parent, and lives in Germany. Would "result out of" be acceptable in written, academic American English? Can it be said at all?
What are the possible applications of Countable Infinite Sets and Power Sets in areas that are not strictly mathematical? Also I want to know the significance they carry. What was not possible before the concepts of countability and power sets were introduced and what became possible afterwards? How did the introduction of these concepts change our thinking and outlook and the areas they affect? Please explain in plain language, possibly with examples, as I am from a non-mathematical background. Thank you in advance. PS: The applications need not be in strictly practical fields either (as Asaf Karagila keeps pointing there aren't any). Please help!
What is the best word or way to describe a person who just has to try and do everything themselves because they think, either rightly or wrongly, that only they are good enough to do the task in hand? The type of person I'm thinking of will attempt to take over any situation. So if you're having a BBQ only they are good enough to cook the food or if you're planning a day out then they decide only they are good enough to drive you there.
My understanding of irony comes from the movie "Reality Bites": It's when the actual meaning is the complete opposite from the literal meaning Frequently people use the term incorrectly, applying it where the actual meaning and the literal meaning are surprisingly similar in unintended ways. A perfect example of the incorrect usage is the picture below. It's definitely not irony, so what word can we use? (Just in case the link has broken, it's a picture of a building with a plaque saying "George Orwell Lived Here". Pointing out in front of the building is a security camera.)
Why is it true that the lower sums of f with respect to some partition is less than the lower integral (which is the supremum of the lower sums) I think what I'm confused about is the difference between a lower sum and the lower integral, how can the lower integral be the supremum of the lower sums when a lower sum is a single number?