darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I read the "Catcher in the rye" and I found it difficult book for not native reader (Compared to for example Steve Jobs biography. There is a lot of guessing what the author means by particular sentence. Context : "Her mother belonged to the same club we did," I said. "I used to caddy once in a while, just to make some dough. I caddy'd for her mother a couple of times. She went around in about a hundred and seventy, for nine holes." I wonder what the main character refer to by : She went around in about a hundred and seventy, for nine holes. Are the numbers refer to numbers in golf? What does : "Go around" means here ?
As I understood, we choose to mark the current with arrows going from the plus pole to the minus pole (even though we know that in reality it is the contrary). As I'm looking at electric circuits, I notice that arrows for generators are going from the minus pole to the plus pole, and that for resistors it is the contrary (for the voltage) How do someone determine the direction of voltage arrows in a circuit? Is there a physical reason to choose a direction or the other? If, for example, I choose to use the red notation to mark my circuit, what's the reason behind this? Giving one notation for the generator, how am I supposed to mark my resistor?
When I use the calculator to get the result of this integral I get a decimal number. However, in my calculus book, as shown on the picture, the answer was represented using some trig symbols! Is there is a way to show the same result, but not in decimal only? I want to use symbols like pi or sin to represent my answer. Just like my book. could it be done using the calculator?
There are many different types of fields such as electron field, magnetic field, higgs field, electric field, quarks field etc, my question is do these fields interact directly with each other? Particle can form when the field becomes excited and different particles may interact with each other directly. Electric field and magnetic field are interacting with one another to become photon right? Or photon is the excitation of electromagnetic field which is a standalone field from others?
Certain disciplines, generally called pseudosciences, falsely claim that they make actionable truthful statements about observable objective reality. Examples are astrology, homeopathy, psychiatry. How would you call a sincere practitioner (not a researcher/populariser) of such a discipline? Not "charlatan" - the perpetrator is as deluded as the victim. Not "pseudo-scientist" - just like a practicing surgeon would not be called a "scientist": this term seems to imply "original contribution" to the discipline as opposed to simply "plying the trade".
Is there strong supporting evidence of discrete electron shells or orbitals surrounding atomic nuclei? I realize the math works out and we have energy frequencies emitted, perhaps even atomic diameter measurements. But these still seem indirect and allow for other possible explanations. Is there direct experimental evidence for these? The orbitals concept is always shown almost as fact, not theory, so wondering what experiments must support such strong conclusions and don't mention any other alternatives?
I'm a pretty bad fellow myself,' the stranger remarked, 'but Macfarlane is the boy - Toddy Macfarlane I call him. Toddy, order your friend another glass.' Or it might be, 'Toddy, you jump up and shut the door.' 'Toddy hates me,' he said again. 'Oh yes, Toddy, you do!' The extract is taken from the Body Snatcher by Robert L. Stevenson. Toddy seems to be just a name, but this word may insinuate another meaning in the above situations. And Macfarlane is the boy, which means he is 'worse' than the speaker?
I was looking for a characterization of the dimension of an nvs using Heine Borel theorem. suppose i have a Compact operator between an Hilbert space and itself, i want to proof that the autospace generated by the eigenvectors associated to one eigenvalues (i'll call it A_L) is finite dimensional. I know from the previous theorems and lemmas that A_L is closed, now my question is: if i show that the orthonormal base of A_L is bounded, precompact therefore compact, is it finite dimension?
I want to compare the time that it takes to slide a particle in a frictionless hypocycloid curve, so time would be given by the arclength divided by the velocity So I need first compute the arclength of the hypocycloid curve, but in general the arclength is given by And by conservation of energy, velocity is given by Substituting in the integral results Solving the indefinite integral results in So now I would just substitute the function y corresponding to the hypocycloid curve Is my reasoning right? Then finally to compare times I would just make a graph of the time functions corresponding to the brachistochrone and the hypocycloid
I know how to prove that the Riemann integral of a function does not change if one point of the function is changed. However, extending that result to a finite set by use of induction is something I have struggled to prove. I just need a hint as to how I should start off the proof. Looking forward to an exchange of ideas. An answer I found for a single point is given below.
Here is a literally-quoted passage from Martyrs in Paradise: Woman of Mass Destruction by Terry Reese Downing: "How nice of you. And thank you," she again was appreciative. "My pleasure. Go back to rest and sleep. Let me know if you needed something and don't hesitate to wake me up," he told her. Is the use of past tense common in these kind of contexts? Does the use of past here get the point across in a less direct way?
I would like to express, in one word, the tendency to concentrate excessively rather than disperse. This is applied in a sentence where I describe a set of data, which has too much focus on one aspect and miss out on other aspects. For this I use the word "constringences". The results collected and presented earlier are limited by ambiguities, paradoxes and constringences. However, it seems some dictionaries do not know constringence, while others do. So is it a word or isn't it?
I read the following sentence in a newspaper about a restaurateur's reasons for abolishing tipping: "Many of the owners other reasons sound like the typical complaints of British tourists, who are perpetually confused by whom to pay and how much." "By" preceding the use of "whom" does not sound right to me. For me the word "by" introduces the performer of an action, whereas I always thought "whom" refers to an object. This must be good English as it was in reputable newspaper, so can anyone explain how this makes sense?
I'm trying to find a way to describe improving the Signal to Noise ratio of a communication/message succinctly. Using the entire phrase over and over gets clunky. Phrases that are close, but don't have as much of a technical connotation as I would like: "Tuning" as in tuning a radio "Demunge," but it implies the message is scrambled, and I think it's programmer jargon anyway
Common phrases are draw drapes or shades, draw a bath (pull water?), draw a conclusion (out of someone) and other uses of pull. Why does draw mean pull? It becomes confusing when something that had a visualizable meaning - pulling drapes across a window - has been extended to something that does not make sense - turning Venetian blinds from the open position to closed position. How did this happen?
Is there an english word fitting the longer description 'the visible part of something as seen right now' or 'the thing as it can be understood as of this time'? The word 'Impression' seems to cover this somewhat, but it has the added baggage of being someones opinion, rather than describing the factual state something has, as well as having a different meaning of being a physical depression of an object on another object. Is there an alternative?
I want to produce two versions of a book, one with footnotes and the other with endnotes. I'm using the endnote package to convert the footnotes to endnotes to produce the second version. But I need to alter the text on the heading and get the headers on each page to look the same for the endnotes as the other chapters in the book. For example, currently the heading says "Notes", say I wish to change this to "Myheading which is underlined" and then have "something else" appear in the headers of the pages on which the endnotes themselves appear. Is there a simple way to do this? Thanks
From a Bibtex file I want to create a References section where each reference has its own abstract. For the abstract, I'm using abstract.bst mentioned in another question. I am using Lyx. When I generate the bookmarks, it only references the start of the References section. This is no good because I want to able to skim the abstracts and also have the document in a printable/shareable form. How do I generate the bookmarks with a bibtex file such that it creates a bookmark for each reference? Also, I don't consider this question Lyx-specific.
Find one possible pair of values for x and y. If x,y and x-y are two-digit numbers. x is a square number, y is a cube number and x-y is a prime number. Is it as easy as I am thinking it is? Or I am trying to complicate things by looking for the equations here. The simplest way I can see is to write down all these two-digit numbers and then choose on possible option. But, is it??
Edited version. If an electrical charge like a lightning bolt seeks ground (think of a lightning's rod's purpose), and if all matter is seeking ground (gravitational pull), and if all energy and all matter are various forms of vibration (electromagnetic spectrum), what is the likelihood that all forms of energy are directly or at least indirectly also seeking ground? I'm just looking for an energy's basic common behaviors with other energy (and matter) Specifically I'm thinking of mechanical (vibrational) energy once it attaches itself to an object. Thanks,
Every algorithm I've found so far begins by computing st numberings, which in turn requires a biconnected graph in order to work with an arbitrary vertex pair (s, t). In the following graph, edges [A, B], [F, G] and [H, I] violate the i < j < k property of an st numbering: https://i.stack.imgur.com/XQmju.png It can obviously be planar, but how is the embedding computed?
Is this double/triple negative grammatically sound? Ordered operations require that space on disk is allocated sequentially, so spatial ordering corresponds to chronology of operations, but actual disk writes need not to be neither atomic nor ordered. Explanation: Words neither and nor emphasize on the fact that both conditions are (independently) allowed to remain unsatisfied, that both are optional. To be more formal, "need not be atomic and need not be ordered". But then again, it becomes a concoction of two negations joined by a conjunction.
G is a given sphere in the space. For any line e that has no common point with G, define the line f as the conjugate of e with respect to G if f joins the points of tangency on the two planes tangent to G passing through e. Show that two lines of the space passing G are skew if and only if their conjugates with respect to G are skew.
Let's says there is a fundamental particle: That is so massive that it is a black hole by itself (Compton wavelength < Schwarzschild radius) That carries a conserved quantum number (e.g. charge of an exotic interaction) which no lighter particle carries Would it be able to emit Hawking radiation? If not, does it contradict with the classical arguments (entropy analogy, pair creation at the horizon etc.) regarding the origin of Hawking radiation?
I am a programmer and I am doing a camera simulation, I am stuck in a matter of how to know where arrives every ray of light after traveling through the lens and being refracted. Every point of the object gives an infinite number of rays, but in my simulation I will take five random rays to trace from every point from the object. The rays from one point of the object should also come to one point on the film. How can I know this specific point on the film for each point from the object? Hope to find some help here about this problem.
I'm going to start a degree course in physics next year. So far in high school I covered some physics without calculus. I know that I will start everything from the beginning at university, but I would like to prepare in some ways. Then the question is: what should I do? Should I revise what I studied? Should I go head? Can you suggest (from your experience) what should I do before starting a physics degree course? PS In case you recommend to study some material, can you suggest a book?
There are so many books teaching how to take derivative and integration of a function. I think I'm good enough (enough for me lol) in those parts, my problem is that I can't start solving a question and even don't know where to start (finding or making the correct function or equation, kind of calculus applications in area, volume, etc.) - what should I do? Plus I wanna know if there is a good syntax in calculus; like if I should write constants and variables in a special way (capital, small, etc.), so that my writing is more readable and clean?
This question is quite specific but I am not sure which verb tense I should use when committing/checking in code. If I fix a bug and checking in the code, should I write: Fixes bug on feature A Fixed bug on feature A I always use past tense because the bug was fixed before I check in but it looks a bit strange when I look at file history. Should I use one over the other and why?
I'm writing a short bio of my character who has made a contract with a demon and is now required to do her bidding. He's not necessarily a slave, he still has the freedom to do whatever he likes, I guess it's kind of like a DnD warlock-patron type of relationship where she occasionally has tasks for him to do and he's bound by contract to complete them. The sentence I'm writing is like "[Character] made a contract with the demon [Demon Name] and is now [word or phrase I can't think of] to her bidding." I swear there's just a single word for it (I keep thinking of words like "vulnerable" and "liable" but they're not really right), not a phrase (though if you can think of one that fits then I might end up using it if I can't figure out the word), and it feels like it's on the tip of my tongue but I can't remember it at all and it's killing me.
Is there a standard, formal or defacto, for what exactly a TeX distribution is and what programs/features need to be supported to be a TeX distribution? I feel like this question has had to have been asked before, and while my searching turned up a number of similar questions none got at the heart of what I was after. For context, I'm trying to understand what TeX and LaTeX are from a software point of view. I've been using TeX/LaTeX for years via the pdflatex command or indirectly via pandoc but I've never really had a good feeling for what, exactly, I'm installing when I install a TeX distribution. For example, right now on my Mac I have a pdflatex command that's located at /Library/TeX/texbin/pdflatex and the /Library/TeX/texbin/ folder has a few hundred binaries in it. So is a TeX distribution just folks deciding which of these programs to make available? Or is there more to it than that? Put another way: If I wanted to create a new nominal TeX distribution (which, trust me, I don't) what exactly would I be doing/have to do? I realize this is a pretty big question with answers that could have varying levels of detail. If the answer is RTFM that's legit -- but I'd appreciate a pointer to which part of which manual I want to be reading.
I'm feeling kind of stumped on this, even though I think I know the answer. If I had written this sentence, I would just rephrase it to avoid the issue, but I came across it and found myself wondering. The sentence: "All that stuff like cars and planes is releasing carbon dioxide." At first glance, it seemed wrong and I immediately thought it should be using "are" instead of "is". But then I stopped and thought about it and realized that it's likely correct, since the sentence would be "All that stuff is releasing carbon dioxide", which is correct, if I took out the examples. It just sounds really awkward and wrong the way it is. Is there any grammatical rule that would justify using "are" in this context? Would it make a difference if the list was longer, like if the sentence was "All that stuff like cars, planes, and factories is/are releasing carbon dioxide"? Or is just a correct grammatical sentence that sounds bad?
My question: What is Happening During Particle Collisions if Particle Location is Defined by a Wave Function? From my understanding, we can define particle location by a probabilistic wave function from Schrodinger's equation. So the particle doesn't exist in one exact spot naturally. So what actually happens then when two particles "collide" (which does seem to imply a single location of contact, at least in classical mechanics)? My guess would be it counts as being "measured" and the wave function collapses to a single location for each particle, but I'm unsure what interaction between the particles would cause it to count as a "measurement" (measurement might be the wrong word but I don't know a more generic term for this). Maybe I'm not fully grasping wave-particle duality here in this specific case. Any help would be appreciated.
I would like to buy a book to study multivariable calculus. Currently, the texts I have in mind are: Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, and Differential Forms A Unified Approach by Hubbard & Hubbard Multivariable Calculus with Applications by Lax & Terrell Functions of Several Real Variables by Moskowitz & Paliogiannis I want a book that has a clear expositions of the subjects of multivariable calculus. Also, I would like a book that avoids leaving proofs as excercises to the reader, or at least that does not do it most of the time. If possible, a book that also contains multiple examples/exercises with (fully) detailed explanations/solutions to at least some of the examples/exercises. I do not mind a rigorous approach to the subject as long as the content is explained with detail. Which of the books mentioned above fits best the description? Also, if you have other books in mind, feel free to recommend them as well. Thanks in advance! Note: I have taken two proof-based calculus classes and one proof-based linear algebra class.
I always assumed that the word censorious meant someone or something that is given to censorship. Like if you say that a community, an organization, or a person is overly-censorious, that means they frequently or unnecessarily censor content. But I just looked up the word in my favorite dictionary and found that censorious has a different meaning than what I thought: censorious Addicted to censure and scolding; apt to blame or condemn; severe in making remarks on others, or on their writings or manners. Implying or expressing censure. So, a censorious person is not a person who is quick to censor. Too bad, because I thought that was a useful word! Is there an actual word that means "being given to excessive censorship"? Example: I might criticize a film distributor as being _____ because they often censor controversial content whenever they release a new edition of a classic film.
Everything I can find says that time dilation approaches infinity at the event horizon of a black hole. Black holes evaporate over a finite amount of time. Wouldn't this imply that somebody falling into a black hole would eventually just see the event horizon shrink away from them as fast as they fall into it. This seems to imply that its impossible for anything to fall past the event horizon, everything just gets very close to the event horizon and then the black hole evaporates from underneath them. Ive read through as many posts as I could find addressing this. The most direct one being this one: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/fall_in.html In all the posts that claim to have a definite answer I don't understand it. And all the posts I feel like I understand don't claim a definite answer.
In the Wikipedia page for the Ising Model it is written without citations: One of Democritus' arguments in support of atomism was that atoms naturally explain the sharp phase boundaries observed in materials[citation needed], as when ice melts to water or water turns to steam. My question is: Is this statement historically accurate? If so, did Democritus have an argument or explained his intuition on how exactly atoms explain sharp phase transitions? A related question, would be how this relates to a a modern statistical mechanics viewpoint and If one really needs an atomistic description: From a continuous model of matter like a classical field theory, could one arrive at a first order phase transition from first principles? I know you could just 'artificially' impose a phase transition, but I'm thinking of a procedure like taking the large-scale limit of a classical field theory and arriving at a new theory with phase transitions.
I am working on TeXmaker and all of the sudden this message popped up (this problem occured after closing and re-opening the program and the code is correct, there i no error inside of it). I tried to run the same code on TeXstudio but it gave me the same problem. I tried to search everywhere in the internet to see if there was a similar cases, but all of theme were useless or not exactly like mine. I get the same message also for older files and new ones. This makes me guess that this is a problem of MiKTeX since it doesn't compile neither on TexMaker and TeXstudio. I tried to use the command prompt as suggested on reddit (I wrote "pdflatex filename"), but I really don't know how to exploit this feature. Do you have any idea of what could cause this problem?
I am learning about EM waves and am getting confused. Here is a picture from an intro. textbook I am using. Looking at this, it is clear that both E and B are perpendicular to the direction of motion, and all is fine. However, let's say the wave was propagating at an angle theta to the z axis. In this case, you can still draw the E and B field perpendicular to the direction of motion (with E in the same plane as the direction of motion and B perpendicular to the plane of motion as in the picture), but now there would be a component of the E field that is in the direction of z, even though the E field is still perpendicular. In this case, why wouldn't the EM wave propagate with this longitude component? What am I missing here? Here's a crappy picture of what I mean: In the picture you see that the wave is propagating in a direction with a non-zero x and z component and clearly the E field also has nonzero components in the x and z direction, so wouldn't these components be "longitudinal waves" as they are propagating in the direction of motion?
Most explanations of the integer quantum Hall effect start out in the grand canonical ensemble, where the plateaus arise when the chemical potential (or equivalently the Fermi energy) is in the gaps between the Landau levels. However, they then usually continue with a statement that working at fixed chemical potential is actually imprecise as the system is in a canonical ensemble (i.e. fixed particle number,) and so we need to include disorder to get the plateaus. While I understand why disorder is needed if we work at fixed particle number, I don't understand why the experimental systems are assumed to be in the canonical ensemble to begin with. Don't electrons flow in/out of the material when you measure resistivity? If this is the case, why is working in the canonical ensemble justified?