darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
Please, help me to clarify this question. Assuming that there are many books I owe to a person and some of them are here on my table, is it correct to say: "The books I owe you are on my table"? Will it show that those books just belong to ones I owe to the person, and somewhere else are other books I owe him? Or will it strictly mean that these are the only books I owe? The confusion is because "the" is often used for an exhaustive list. And if to say: "The book I owe you is on my table" - the same question - can it just show that this is one of those books and there are other books I owe somewhere? Thanks.
I am wondering if saying "tune to this music" would make sense? Guitars can be tuned to particular note, can people tune to song, or music, or idea? Google doesn't return many results for "tune to" so I guess it sounds strange, but I found a song "Tune to the Music" by Status Quo. I am asking this question because I am looking for a name for new web site related to music and songs and tune-to also came to my mind.
I was doing so research on neutron stars and I bumped into this stock exchange page. Does a neutron star burn? Quote from an awnser: The Pauli exclusion principle causes the neutrons to resist further compression. That is, the neutrons, being identical fermions, can't all be put in the same state. So to get them closer and closer together you have to go into higher and higher energy states. This confused me, how can a neutron be in an energy state. Does this relate to nuclear strong force in any way?
Person A uses the phrase "eager beaver" to mean an enthusiastic person. Person B chuckles. Basically my question boils down to who the weirdo is, so to speak: A, because "eager beaver" is outdated and the sexual connotations are too strong to hope that one should understand the "normal" meaning B, because "eager beaver" is a perfectly benign phrase with no sexual meanings whatsoever. Anyone who sees sexual connotations in this phrase is simply being immature.
Can someone please comment/elaborate on the statement: "The normal distribution is a common model of randomness." I would like to understand it more deeply. Source: Perhaps someone can point me to a theorem or proof supporting this statement. So my question for this thread really comes down to: If a process can be modeled well by a normal distribution, is this a necessary and sufficient condition for the process to be called "random"?
I took screenshots of both the question and answers provided, however there are a couple of steps I did not understand and i put red arrows over equal signs i didn't get. (normally there's an asterisk above the equals sign and an explanation, but none for this question). I'm asking if someone can explain both where the formulae come from and also what's going on in the transformations.
Please, I am not a mathematician so highly mathematical textbook language will not make sense, that is why I am forced to post this question here. I am reading about Checksum and CRC data integrity techniques and I have come across the terms "primtive polynomial" and "prime polynomial". I will really appreciate if someone could give example of these and explain what makes them primitive and prime. e.g about polynomials used in Cyclic Redundancy Check that are implemented using hardware feedback registers it says "The best ones are not necessarily prime (irreducible) nor primitive"
The following is a comment made by a poster in response to this article: Absolutely correct. Intentionally obscuring who you are and what your desires are may lead to heartache and in rare occurrences broken lives. I personally, unlike this articles author never ever want to come close to breaking another individuals life. What does it mean when your life is broken, or to break someone's life?
Which of these forms is better: list of tasks or tasks' list? Another question is whether I should use an apostrophe or not (tasks's list vs tasks list). Other phrases which are similar to this, but aren't quite what I'm looking for, are list of projects and task's action (one task this time). Maybe the answer is obvious, but English is not my native language so I need to understand it.
What is the difference between a battery and a charged capacitor? I can see lot of similarities between capacitor and battery. In both these charges are separated and When not connected in a circuit both can have same Potential difference V. The only difference is that battery runs for longer time but a capacitor discharges almost instantaneously. Why this difference? What is the exact cause for the difference in the discharge times?
"It don't make any difference," he said. "I'm washed up anyway. Some nose puts the bulls on me tomorrow, next week, what the hell? I just didn't like your map, pal. A nose means a person, I guess, but is there a idiom like 'put the bulls on somebody'? Or if has something to do with 'put balls on', it doesn't make much sense in this sentence. I understand this sentence as 'somebody would kill me.... but I don't care." (from 'Red Wind' by Raymond Chandler)
I can't find the difference between these two words. I want to describe the property of something that is repeating at a fixed period (don't ask me to use periodicity, that would be for another question). For instance, in the sentence: I can see that there is ... in candy sales. People are buying on average more at the beginning of the month than at the end of the it. Which of the two terms "cyclicity" and "cyclicality" would best fit, and for what reason?
I would like to know whether there is a grammatical or semantical difference between "notion of " and "-notion". I do not know what to search for to answer this question so maybe someone can help me here :-) For instance "development of a notion of IT-Infrastructure" vs. "development of an IT-Infrastructure-notion". The first one is very long and doggerel, but the second one is maybe wrong/not good style. In other words: I need a section title where I develop (extract literature, derive facts, ...) a notion or understanding of the term IT Infrastructure. What would be a correct one?
I usually tend to see the behavior in which someone takes an action, and people criticize, and even suggest what they should have done, yet when they take that same suggestion people still criticize. For instance: I'm slim; when I eat with my family, everyone exclaims at the amount of food I'm eating. When I eat normally, they ask "Don't you know, you should eat more so you can grow better?" When I don't eat, the same shouting takes place. So in other words, is there a word I could use to describe them or their behavior in this regard?
I am using a template from, "The Legrand Orange Book" (name of tex file is main.tex) and the author has a very nice template that looks like: However, after using "Make Index" from WinEdt, my index comes out all plain and no color like that above. He mentioned in his template to run: makeindex main.idx -s StyleInd.ist from the command line. How can I implement this index template in my document. In the folder that he has available, he already has the .idx and ind file. But whenever I run WinEdt's "Make Index", it gets over written to look like: How can I make the index in WinEdt to look like the first image above?
I can relate to what it says, I feel, but I don't quite understand it - does that make sense? Probably not. My first language is not English, so the confusion is great! How would you interpret this in plain English: As long as I retain my feeling and my passion for Nature, I can partly soften or subdue my other passions and resist or endure those of others.
What is a Christoffel symbol? I often see that Christoffel symbols describe gravitational field and at other times that they describe gravitational accelerations. Then, on some blogs and forums, people say this is wrong because Christoffel symbol is NOT a tensor and thus has no physical meaning. Which of these statements is the right one? What is the significance of a Christoffel symbol in differential geometry and General Relaivity?
What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible? The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution.
As the title says, I'm looking for a word to describe some clip-on module which provides a new ability that improves the base concept/entity. Some context, such a word could describe: A warp drive module on a space ship A standalone plugin which provides a completely new feature set If possible, the word might imply a necessity, that without such an add-on the entity is lacking and incomplete.
I am writing some software documentation. There are data structures that are organized in trees and every element in the structure can be child or parent "to"/"of" every other element. I am not a native speaker and my instincts are pretty divided on the matter themselves, so I guess I have to turn to higher powers to answer that question. Hence, I turn to you: Is it "to" or "of" in that case?
I only have a very basic understanding of general relativity, so this might sound stupid. But as I see that gravitational objects orbiting each other, even if one of them is massive, as long as their paths don't lead to collision, they curve back, like a sling shot. So since singularity is supposed to have zero radius, it seems nothing should actually collide with it. And even if it's non-zero, only near zero, there could still be a possibility that a particle falling (depending on its initial orbit) could eventually just get a sling shot around it, never colliding with it or falling into it. Does that make sense? Or do all paths really lead directly at the exact the center of the singularity?
I have started my Differential equation course recently. And My professor was interchangeably using the term boundary condition and initial condition. I'm wondering what are the differences of their meaning in this context when dealing with the partial differential equations. I thought one would not need a boundary condition if a system extends to infinity, but the case of wave on a string would need, since it's a finite system For the initial condition, it always mean the initial state of the system. Can anyone tell me if my understandings are correct. Thank you!
I have done the following experiment: A DC generator is worked by an object falling and connected to the DC generator via string. The DC generator is coupled to a LED in reverse direction. The observation was the following: As long as the object falls, the LED is off. When the objects hits the floor, the LED very shortly lights up. Why is that? It seems to be a Reverse-recovery effect but in the opposite direction.
Wikipedia states "a vacuous truth is a statement that asserts that all members of the empty set have a certain property". Clearly the statement: 'all elements of said (empty) set possess said property' is vacuously true. However, one could argue that the negation of the statement: 'no elements in said set posses said property' is also true. Shouldn't that mean that the statement is both true and false. I understand there may be slightly different definitions of what constitutes a vacuous statement, but I suppose this particular issue will show up nevertheless.
Say I have a data point with included errors and I want to build some continuous distribution around it. Normally this might be a Gaussian because one knows the sigma and mean right off the bat. However, if you have asymmetric errors it becomes a lot harder. It seems like you should be able to model a Gaussian about a data point with such errors using a skewed normal distribution, let me know if I am wrong. Essentially, I would like to know if there is a way to generate a standard normal distribution if you know the mean, max, and min? The mean being the data point, max being the data point plus the upper bound, and min being the data point minus the lower bound.
Mostly I read that the x-rays are produced from the matter surrounding the black hole which spirals into the black hole due to its gravity and is consequently heated up. If the black hole has a main sequence star or a giant star as a binary partner, the BH pulls matter from the partner, which then forms an accretion disk around the black hole. But sometimes I read that Hawking radiation is also producing X-rays or even gammarays. So is this possible or very rare and only occuring within very old BH? Or is Hawking radiation only about virtual particles wich often annihilates each other or one going into the BH and the other becoming real?
As we know electrons are charged particles, hence they have a field surrounding them, which has some energy. Now in electron diffraction the electrons have their influence on other electrons and themselves also get affected. So my question is that why this influence of an electromagnetic wave (because of electronic charge) not considered to explain this phenomenon, as that interaction of EM wave may lead to that pattern.
Is it possible to solve an equation with different operations in it correctly without using orders of operation? I was having a discussion with my friend who believes you can solve an equation from left to right no matter what the operations are. I told my friend that the answer you get would not be correct, but they still insist they are right. Who is right and why?
I need to know the typical energy balance of an IC engine and where this energy goes, but I am unsure what exactly they are asking? Engines are not my main strengths, so I could do with as much as help as possible and as simple as it can be please? I tried researching this but everything I read was very complex and I didnt really grasp it. Could anyone please help me?
I've always been confused by the terms washroom, restroom, bathroom, lavatory, toilet and toilet room. My impression is that Canadians would rather say washroom while Americans would probably say bathroom or Saint John's in the same situation. I guess the difference here is not only in different kinds of English, but also in whether one is referring to a room in their house or in some public place. Which do you usually use? Please specify the difference if you use more than two from those six with different meanings, and also where you are from (i.e. what type of English you speak).
I understand that, given some function space, distributions lie in the dual space. In that sense, they can be thought of as functions of a "function of a real variable" variable. But the common representation of the delta distribution as an infinitely large "spike" of a certain infinite magnitude suggests that perhaps they can also be thought of as functions of a real variable, where the codomain is some expanded set of which the reals are a subset. Is this possible, or is delta a special case?
Let's take a bottle (no cap) with half its volume filled with water. If we rotate the bottle at some slower average velocity, water does not drop out of it. The same principle works on Roller Coasters. Wikipedia says that the phenomenon of Vertical Loop is used here. What is the physics behind this? (I mean, Which opposes or equilibrates gravity during the vertical loop?)
Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions on types of generating functions which guarantee the existence/nonexistence of a closed form for the sequence they enumerate? Generating functions based on linear recurrence relations clearly always do (by annihilators), but are there more general statements to be made about other types of OGFs? What about DGFs and others? Does limiting the generating functions we consider to be ones obtained from different varieties of recurrence relations allow more concrete answers to be produced? Also, if there are books, journals, or specific papers on the topic, please link them! This is fascinating stuff.
I'm studying modern physics and have some questions about these three different scattering. In the book and wiki all tells me Raman and Rayleigh scattering are inelastic and elastic collision separately, but what about Compton scattering? Does Compton scattering include this two type of scattering since the picture in the book give me two angle of scattering with one differ from the original angle while one remains unchanged? Or it can't be categorized in any of above since it interact with an "electron"? Hope to know the details, by the way I'm studying modern physics by Serway
Is there a word that describes someone having a false sense of knowing? In other words, one believes he knows X, but X isn't true. Here is an example sentence: However, consent forms give people only a false sense of knowing. The sentence means that people are not given full knowledge or information but they think they are. This is close to being misinformed but not quite.
I'm using tex-live on a Ubuntu machine. I got a customized graphics.cfg file (configuration file for the graphix package) that I'd like to use as default on my system. I've tried to locate the graphics.cfg used on my system: locate graphics.cfg but I got many results: /etc/texmf/tex/latex/config/graphics.cfg /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/latex/latex-graphics-companion/inputs/graphics.cfg /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc-en/latex/latex-graphics-companion/inputs/graphics.cfg /usr/share/texlive-base/graphics.cfg Which file should I substitute with the desired one? Thanks for the help P.s. I know that I might modify the one in my local tree, but I'm writing a tutorial and would like to write a section explaining how to modify it system-wide and user-wide.
I'm a guy and I change my appearance to look like my female counterpart just so that I can physically see someone that could understand and relate with me even from just the mirror. I would wear feminine clothes if I could, but I wouldn't want to wear them always, neither am I gay. I'd probably wear them, look at the mirror then take 'em off afterwards. What am I called?
It means "to write literary works, knowing that they will not pass censorship and be published". I am looking for some English equivalents that can be used to describe not only writing but also doing different things like taking photos for example for oneself and refusing to publish them. Thank you very much in advance Let's just find an equivalent for "doing things for yourself and not caring whether it will be published or not". A good example is Kafka most of whose books were published after his death
I know there are other questions i.e. Do quantum computers manufactured by D-Wave Systems, Inc. work? , What can the D-Wave quantum computer do? , etc. But I can't seem to find my answer. What is getting in the way of determining if D-Wave is a quantum computer? Why can't we just analyze the way they built, and see if it's quantum? Is there a problem with patents getting in the way? Why can we still not tell?
I'm wondering if there are more-commonly-than-not held connotations for terms regarding occupation that would differentiate between one's own personal experience in a field versus the description of the field as a whole. E.g. I am an engineer at company A, this is my job, but engineer is my profession. The example is arbitrary. To me I associate job, occupation, and career with a more personalized representation of employment while profession or vocation are less so. NB: I am trying to model certain relationships in code and want to choose the best names for some objects in the hierarchy so that it is at least somewhat evident by their names what the relationships are. I understand that there may not be any one "right" answer to this question.
Consider a model of the empty unsorted signature. Equivalently, a model of the signature having a single sort, and no function or relation symbols. Intuitively, such a model should be called a "set." However, the emphasis is all wrong. For example, in ZFC everything is a set, but I don't feel comfortable saying that everything in ZFC is a model of the empty signature. Firstly, because its just false. Secondly, because we should only talk about models up to isomorphism, however your average ZFC set is interesting beyond its cardinality; that is, beyond its structure up to isomorphism. We care about more than just the cardinality of your average ZFC set. Is there a good word to mean "a model of the empty signature"?
The depletion region reduces as the forward bias is increased. Does at any point it reach zero or negligible length? Knee voltage of a diode is defined as the minimum amount of forward bias required for the diode to show significant conduction. It denotes the potential barrier created across the depletion region via accumulation of charges, i.e. negative charges on P side, and positive on N side
Needles to say I am a visitor here. I do not belong to the science world;) But I have read both of these things before: Apple falls to the ground because curved spacetime pushes it there (same force as keeps moon in orbit) Apple 'falls' to ground because the ground is rushing up to meet the apple (which is actually suspended in space) because of Earth's acceleration through space. I don't think these can both be true. I'd appreciate any clarification - thank you.
Can you use packages on math.stackexchange? The help associated with the editor does not mention packages, so I am guessing it's not possible. But if it is, how? I am particularly interested in the centernot package at the moment. If there is documentation or a prior question for this, please direct me to it -- I have searched for this answer with no luck. There are responses on package use on tex.stackexchange, but they do not work as-is on stackexchange. Finally, is this a good place to ask questions about TeX usage in stackexchange? When I tried such a question on meta.math.stackexchange, I got scolded and sent here. Well, it was a generic TeX question, and this one is specific to stackexchange. Thanks.
land |land| noun the part of the earth's surface that is not covered by water, as opposed to the sea or the air. Many writers in countless books and various writings use the terms "dry land" to describe earth's surface that is not covered by water. "They walked on dry land." Why, when simply, "land" will suffice according to its definition? Do we call the earth under our oceans, or any body of water, land? If so then I would agree that using "dry land" is not redundant, but by definition it is.
Here are three ways to say the same thing. I wonder if there are particular rules regarding to the position of adverb phrases: Then play those passages over and over again in your memory Or, Then play those passages in your memory over and over again Or, Then play over and over again those passages in your memory I think the last is the worst choice but the first twos seem ok. The first is better because "over and over again" is closer to "play" so it is emphasized. Agreed?
How can we get the mass of an uncharged proton, i.e. how varies the mass of the charged proton if i remove the electric charge? For the isotopic spin theory neutron and proton have the same mass and it is possible to distinguish that particles only for the different values of the third component of the isotopic spin. This is an approximated symmetry because the masses are different and the charges too. In a ideal world we can remove the electric charge from the proton and we get a "uncharged" proton. The question is how the mass changes. You can interpret that question as what it is the contribution to the mass due the charge, not only for proton but for all particles.
In the good ol' days I drew figures with xfig and generated LaTeX source to directly include in my papers. But I now find powerpoint to be a faster drawing tool and sufficient for most of my needs. What's the best way to embed the resulting image in LaTex? I current output to pdf, then include using the graphicx package. But the resulting scaling and positioning trial-and-error session is often extremely frustrating, and the documentation on the package is quite sparse and unhelpful. Is there a better way?