darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I know that at the research level, it's common to use different areas of Mathematics to solve a problem. But my question is whether at the undergraduate level it is possible to have a problem or exercise in which to solve it, it is necessary to use subjects that are not normally seen together. For example, a problem involving at the same time Differential Geometry and Differential Equations, or Abstract Algebra and Calculus or Linear Algebra and Combinatorics... In short, is this possible? Could someone give me examples ? PS: I'm not talking about subjects that are pre-requisite to each other like Analytic Geometry and Calculus. And remember, I'm referring to the undergraduate level.
I have a data logger that is recording the temperature readings from thermocouples at a specific interval. This gives me data points that I can graph where the x-coordinate is time and the y-coordinate is temperature. For each set of data points that I graph, I can connect the points and make a line - usually curved. I need to find the derivative of each line and graph those as well. There is no known function that creates these curves, so I can't simply find the derivative of a function. All I have is a huge list of (x,y) coordinates. How do I take a derivative and graph it in this case?
Wasn't there a mathematician who was convinced that "god" was out to get him? When he was travelling by sea he would write a friend a letter claiming that he had finally proved a difficult theorem (even though he hadn't). His reasoning was that he would always reach his destination safely since god couldn't stand to let him die on the dangerous voyage while leaving the rest of the world thinking that he had actually come up with the proof... There was also some story about rainy days and sports games, but I can't remember. Who was this? I tried searching with Google, but couldn't find anything and didn't know exactly what to search for...
Can you suggest books/articles on Function approximation Let me quote from the above wiki: Second, the target function, call it g, may be unknown; instead of an explicit formula, only a set of points of the form (x, g(x)) is provided. Depending on the structure of the domain and codomain of g, several techniques for approximating g may be applicable. For example, if g is an operation on the real numbers, techniques of interpolation, extrapolation, regression analysis, and curve fitting can be used. Any books/articles dealing with the above mentioned problem.Preferably with examples.
I have checked OALD. I looked up "disinformation" which according to dictionary means "false information that is given deliberately, especially by government organizations" and "Misinform" as a verb means "to give somebody wrong information about something". However, there is no explanation of the word "Misinformation" as a noun. What exactly is the difference between these two? I would like to know if there is any nuance between these two words or if they can be used interchangeably.
The universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Thus the following three-part question. Are there any theories that suggest the expansion is a consequence of a pull from some unknown source rather than a push from the presumed dark energy? Regardless of the cause, and assuming the expansion continues at an ever-increasing wheee, when will the most distant parts reach the speed of light? And then what happens?
Possible Duplicate: Confused about the role of mass I know that two different masses fall at the same rate in the same gravitational field because the greater gravitational force of the heavier one is exactly offset by its greater inertial resistance. What I don't understand is why the larger mass wouldn't fall more slowly at first and then once the inertial resistance is overcome, it would then accelerate faster than the less massive one. It seems that the rate of acceleration (not velocity, which obviously does) would vary according to the distance of the fall
The concept of reversibility always gives me a hard time.In a reversible process the change of entropy is zero. On the other hand for irreversible process it is not.But there comes another topic which is 'internal reversibility'. I couldn't quite grasp the concept. Can any one simply explain the following topic in plain words for me? What is internal reversibility or internal reversible process? Difference between internal and external reversible process?
I added the hyperref package and got some errors. Thus I deleted the auxiliary files and compiled again. This time there were no errors, and the links work except in the cites (bibliography), where I get question marks and links that send me to the first page. Any ideas? In fact I don't need the links in the cites, so if there's a way I can solve the problem by having just the links in the figures and in the index it's welcome.
I am trying to decide on a symbol for a particular mathematical quantity, it has three different types of indices and I'm running out of places to put sub-scripts/super-scripts. I have a few ideas, but would like input on what looks best (or any additional ideas you may have). Since you are all typesetting experts, and anyone who uses TeX likely has some affinity for aesthetics, I figured this was a good place to ask. Here are my ideas so far: For context, the symbol is used in equations similar to this:
I know the difference between the two. Breath is a noun and breathe is a verb. It was taught to me that way and I've never mixed them up in any way because their different pronunciation reflects their difference in spelling. This is reflected in this NGram chart which shows extremely few documented cases of incorrectly using "to breath" as a verb. However, I've recently noticed many, many, many people on the internet using "breath" as a verb (e.g. "I need to breath"), and it is quite confusing and irritating. Is there any history behind this misuse?
I've just had a discussion about using "to separate" when relating to events in time. A colleague of mine used the word to describe that an event occurred between two other events while the events aren't necessarily continuous. For example, he'd say "Monday and Friday is separated by Wednesday". I think that the separator should be "thicker" to fill the gap between the two endpoints fully. So I'd say "Wednesday is between Monday and Friday" or "Monday is separated from Friday by Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday". Which explanation sounds better? Would you use other words to describe that something happens after something else has already ended and the next thing hasn't started yet?
So tonight's Quatrantids shower got me thinking. Why does the debris from comets and former comets hang around so long? Each year the earth sweeps through the region of space that the comet went through. However, the comet doesn't come by each year, so the earth must be going through the same cloud numerous times. And each time we get a meteor shower as a result. I suspect an answer, but I'd rather hear from professionals.
After recently going through a short program of self-study in quantum mechanics, I was surprised to find a quote attributed to Feynman essentially saying he was extremely bothered by the computational process of renormalization. It's "dippy" that anyone should have to subtract one infinity by another in order to arrive at a finite answer. What's he referring to there, in rough terms? And what's the latest in attempts to replace this computational procedure with something more physically plausible, so that the theory can have more meaning and less dippiness?
I'm writing a Cover Letter and I'm including the following sentence: "Furthermore, I have a passion for dealing with- and meeting- new people." I recall an English professor suggesting something like this because, here, the "with" and the "meeting" both relate directly to "new people." Is this correct? Or should I just stick with commas and get on with my life (as below)? "Furthermore, I have a passion for dealing with, and meeting, new people." <-- seems weird. Thanks for your help!
Possible Duplicate: In what ways can TeX be used beyond document production? What else can we create in LaTeX besides aesthetically beautiful typeset documents? I know we can create theses, monographs, books, we can draw using PSTricks or TikZ and create slides with Beamer, but what else can we do? I do not know, but how to create mailers? How to create animations? These are just a few suggestions. What else can we create in LaTeX? How to go beyond LaTeX?
I have programmed a counter. It counts at one point per second until it reaches ten points, at which time it resets back to zero and begins to count at two points per second. Again, upon reaching ten points it resets again and begins counting again at three points per second... and so forth, continuing to increase the points per second by one each time it reaches ten points and resets back to zero. My question is, what is the process to construct the formula that will tell me how many resets have occurred after t seconds? Thank you.
I've read the textbook Groups and Their Graphs by Grossman, and I'm interested in learning more about graphs. I know about O. Ore's book in the same series (Graphs and Their Uses), but I'm interested in a book which will tell me more about the relation between graphs and groups. I don't know any advanced mathematics (I only about group theory and graph theory from Grossman's book), so please recommend books which are not too complicated. I would also be glad for recommendations of books which are about group theory but have a focus on graphs.
As far as I interpret it, the law of ever increasing entropy states that "a system will always move towards the most disordered state, never in the other direction". Now, I understand why it would be virtually impossible for a system to decrease it's entropy, just as it is virtually impossible for me to solve a Rubik's cube by making random twists. However the (ever so small) probability remains. Why does this law underpin so much of modern physics? Why is a theory that breaks this law useless, and why was Maxwell's demon such a problem? Does this law not just describe what is most likely to happen in complex systems, not what has to happen in all systems?
Here is the situation: Kids in a small yard are about to play soccer. There are no goalposts in that yard (or "goals" or whatever you call it, I mean those metal frames on each side of the soccer field that have nets on them. Once the ball is in the net, the score changes). So, one boy picks up some sticks from the ground and tries to mark out the goalposts for each team. While doing that he says: "This will be your team's goal and that will be our team's goal" Is the first goal that he mentioned the one that his team will be defending or trying to get the ball into?
The default twoside memoir document style makes the right margin really large on recto (odd) pages and the left margin really large on verso (even) pages. This seems counter-intuitive to me. It seems to me that you want the large margin against the spine of the book, to compensate for the part of the margin lost to the binding process. So is the default style really what one wants for publishing, or do I need to customize the margins to be the opposite of what they are by default?
As I was reading about the experimental arrangement for photoelectric effect, I saw a diagram that puzzled my knowledge of electrodes. I found that in the experimental setup the cathode of the photoelectric plate or emitter was connected to the positive terminal of the cell. Why is it so? How can a negative electrode be connected to positive terminal of a cell? I read Wikipedia article on cathode and it said " In a device which consumes power, the cathode is negative, and in a device which provides power, the cathode is positive". What does this mean?
I understand that for a set of vectors to be linearly independent, none of the vectors in the set should be a linear combination of some other vectors in that set. But why on earth should I care about it? How does it help me? For example imagine a simple situation - I have a system of inequalities, which defines a set of points (vectors) which satisfy all these inequalities. Why should I care whether this set of solutions to the system is linearly dependent or independent?
Being a mathematician with mathematician friends, my friends and I occasionally like to joke about the peculiarities of the English language. This one came up recently: Obviously, most English sentences and phrases cannot be read backwards and forwards and maintain the same meaning. For instance, "watch this" and "this watch" have clearly different meanings. In mathematics, we call this non-commutativity, and it is deeply interesting. So the question is, can anyone think of a phrase or sentence which has the same semantic meaning when the words are read from right to left?
The result of an imbalance of electrons between objects is called static electricity. It is called "static" because the displaced electrons tend to remain stationary after being moved from one insulating material to another. Please can any one explain to me what does it mean by the word stationary in the definition? Does it mean that the displaced electrons do not spin around the nucleus in another material's atom?
The vast majority of the time when I see the word "myriad" it is in a sentence like "He had a myriad of things." However I don't like the extraneous words so I normally use it like "He had myriad things." My boss corrected the latter usage while editing something I wrote. I averted an argument by simply changing the sentence to "He had various things." but was I incorrect?
I saw someone write the sentence "Of course they're". As a native English speaker, this instantly seemed wrong but I couldn't come up with a good reason as to why. I did a bit of research and there seems to be a rule called "stranding" where if there's an object before the clitic then it can't end like that but I don't entirely understand it.
I am trying to create a machine that moves on two points (Wheels or legs). Because of the extremely difficult nature of perfectly balancing the parts, I am wondering is there any way to create a mechanical mechanism to balance it. I know that it can be done with many different electric circuits, but I am wondering is it even theoretically possible to create such a system? And if it's possible, does anyone know of any systems that do that? P.S. Could someone retag this appropriately? I'm new to this SE, and I'm not sure how to tag it.
I frequently hear people quoting widely-used idioms or proverbs as if they are fact, simply because they are used frequently by many people. For example, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Can these be called a "truism" even if not true or must they be actually true to be called a "truism"? Are there more precise terms for the two meanings, "widely believed ideas, which really aren't true" and "widely believed ideas, which really are true"?
Sometimes, I feel that the term "first generation" is used sort of vaguely sometimes. So it confuses me (because my situation) is a little bit complicated. My dad, was an immigrant from a foreign country and lived here long enough to get a passport. That way, he has an American citizenship. My mom, wasn't born in the US and doesn't have a US citizenship. I wasn't born in the US, so am I a first generation American? Or do I just have a citizenship (because of my dad's American citizenship)?
I use TexStudio to create a tex file and save it in my DropBox in the Cloud. I then use CloudConvert to make a pdf file, which I then save on my Windows Pc. This works OK, but isn't there a simpler, more direct way? I'd like to execute a Windows program which inputs a tex file and outputs a pdf file. I have MiKTeX installed on my PC.
Let's say we have a normal circuit with a light bulb, with wires and a battery. When one places a capacitor in this circuit, how is the light bulb able to light up, even when the capacitor prevents the flow of charge? Also, why does it dim and then go out eventually? Then when the battery is removed from this circuit, how is the light bulb still able to light up? And what is happening when the light bulb dims and goes out in this situation as well?
My question is about the use of would in the following sentence. He grew up around cars that would later become classics. The use of would in this particular sense always looks confusing to me because it's so different from: I would like to know... I don't think he would agree to that... Would you mind.... Would it be alright if I... etc. The above sentence, as I see it, means "he grew up around cars which were going to become classics in the future". Is that correct? If yes, does it also mean that the cars actually became classics later?
I know that for rigid bodies only the work-energy theorem states that the net work done on the body equals the change in kinetic energy of the body since a rigid body has no internal degrees of freedom and hence no other forms of energy such as potential energy. Is there a most generalized form of work energy theorem that is valid for rigid as well as non rigid bodies and for conservative as well as non-conservative force? I would like a work-energy equation that would be valid for point particles, rigid bodies and non-rigid bodies.
Assuming that the earth is spherical, that its temperature is continuous, and that some other more or less realistic conditions hold, we might think that the Earth's core temperature should be about the average of its surface temperatures. This is not the case, as the core is hotter than all but a few spots on the surface. Can someone explain where the assumptions break down? Is it that the temperature is not static?
For introducing a field of science, usually we require a definition which summarizes the goal which is intended to be achieved by this field. Linear Algebra is one of the most important parts of mathematics which has not only interesting pure mathematical ideas but also a lot of applications in physics and engineering. So it seems reasonable to have a Complete, Clear, Brief, and Delicate definition for this important branch of mathematics. I am wondering that what is the best fit for such a definition. For example, the very first sentence that the Linear Algebra Done Right by Sheldon Axler starts with is Linear Algebra is the study of linear maps on finite dimensional vector spaces. What is your definition of Linear Algebra in few sentences?
We all know the "Inertia" of a particle is actually related to its "Mass". But when we talk about "Moment of inertia" of a body, we actually are talking about its "Mass distribution" about some point/axis. So depending on how the mass is distributed in the body (what shape a body has), its moment of inertia could be determined. So my question is can we do it vice-versa? I mean if we had the moment of inertia of a body about some axis, can we construct its shape?
I'm quite stuck with this problem. I know that I have an object in orbit. I know the eccentricity of that orbit, as well as the semi-major axis of the orbit. Giving a true anomaly, how do I find the speed and altitude of that object? The true anomaly is the angle between the line made with the focus of the ellipse and the position of the object. Thank you! P.S. I'm more looking for a general help, more than a specific answer. That's why I didn't give any numbers.
Imagine driving in a straight line on a ice lake, when you hit the brakes, if your goal is to stay in straight path with no spinout, which wheels would you choose to have locked: front or rear? Assuming the steering wheel is kept fixed in both cases, I learned that it's better to have front wheels locked in this case. But can someone explain in accurate terms why? Thanks.
Generally speaking, the rainy season is in the summer in tropical climates, and in the winter in mediterranean climates. (I admit that is a gross oversimplification) What is the cause for this difference? Purely speculatively, it seems intuitive that hot weather would lead to higher humidity, which in turn would lead to more spontaneous rain clouds. This would obviously be maximized by summer weather. But why is the rainy season in the winter in colder climates?
As I understand it, trans means "an individual whose gender identity is different than what they were designated at birth". However, I also hear the terms transgender and transsexual used for similar meanings. I know that personally I only refer to myself as trans or rarely transgender, and never transsexual, and the latter sounds very odd to me. I'm interested in why there are several words for roughly the same meaning, and if they do have different meanings or simply based on geography and time period.
I was playing a table-top rpg with a friend. It was set... well it was pretty weird, so I won't get into it. Suffice it to say the bad guy had a stick of dynamite and we were on a volcano. I hit the dynamite with my slingshot, knocking it into the lava directly behind the villain. My DM said the dynamite melts away. I said it should have blown him up. Needless to say, as a couple nerds (we were, after all, playing a fantasy game and then arguing about the physics of it) we were pretty upset with each other. What would have happened in this... totally realistic scenario? Would the stick of dynamite exploded? Or simply melt away?
I have a basic question regarding the ramifications of P vs NP. If P=NP, then SAT would be in P. If I understand the definitions correctly, this would imply that there is a Turing machine which decides SAT in polynomial time. However, does this mean that there would actually be a polynomial-time algorithm for producing a solution of SAT? For instance, what if there were some mysterious polynomial-time computation one could do to a given instance of SAT which would tell you whether or not it was satisfiable, without actually producing a solution (I'm thinking of primality-testing, where for arithmetic reasons it can be easier to verify prime-ness than to actually exhibit a factorization)
I'm in need to implement Monotone Cubic Interpolation for interpolate a sequence of points. The information I have about the points are x,y and timestamp. I'm much more an IT guy rather than a mathematical person, so I'm looking for an example of implementation. What I need to do with the resulting functions is store them for future analysis. My favorite syntax are PHP, Python, Java, Delphi, VB or a generic algorithmic language of your choice.
Lines and conics have clear geometric meanings that are coordinate-free, but cubics seem to rely entirely on cubic equations and coordinate systems. Are there ways to define cubic curves without cubic equations? I thought about this question by trying to generalize tangent lines and osculating circles. Since a tangent line is defined by taking the limit of two points on the curve, and an osculating circle is defined by taking the limit of two tangent lines on the curve, I thought about taking the limit of two osculating circles on the curve, but after playing around with evolutes and involutes, I couldn't come up with anything.
I'm an ESL teacher. Normally I teach lower intermediate but I also teach a mixed level grammar review class. I pride myself on being able to explain things clearly but today I found myself in THREE sticky situations all in the same class! I'll explain here the two problems involving conditionals. First Case: Is it better to say... If he knew that I WERE/WAS home now, he would call. OR If he knew that I AM home now, he would call. Does the second verb in the if clause also take the subjunctive form because it is in the if clause or should it take the present simple form because it is not a hypothetical (I am home now is not hypothetical, his knowledge of it is.)