darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I was trying to describe my friend as being someone who gets upset in the absence of immediate gratification, but couldn't think of a good word. A good example would be someone who comes back from the gym and takes off their shirt expecting to look fit after one session. Is there a word to describe someone that does this? The closest I could think of was "impatient", but that doesn't quite pin down the meaning.
I was wondering how this phrase sounds in English: She is a little bit shy. In my country the people say "a little bit" a lot, and sometimes they use it wrong. I have the impression that in US (or even in other countries where English is spoken), people prefer to be more specific saying "She is shy". Anyway, I don't want to be misunderstood, can you tell me if the above phrase sounds awkward, and in which situations I can use "a little bit" without problem.
I know that Galois Theory can be used to answer the following question: Why is there no formula for the roots of a fifth (or higher) degree polynomial equation in terms of the coefficients of the polynomial, using only the usual algebraic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) and application of radicals (square roots, cube roots, etc)? Can real analysis be used also to answer this question (e.g using the intermediate value theorem, etc..)? Is there some sort of connection between real analysis and galois theory?
My sentence is as follows: I lodged a complaint with Acme Corporation, a private entity. Does it need to be changed into: I lodged a complaint with Acme Corporation, which was a private entity. I appreciate the meaning between the two sentences is slightly different. I would just like to know if the first sentence is grammatically correct. It looks correct to me but I have been told that only the second version is grammatically correct. Is there a 'rule' governing this situation that I can reference?
Does one need to invoke quantum mechanics to explain Casimir or van der Waals forces? I see that textbooks show derivations of van der Waal forces with no QM but the Casimir force is typically described within QM. Additional questions I have are: Is there a difference between van der Waals and Casimir forces? Are there distinct examples of these two forces in real life? Is there a way to prove a given force is van der Waal and not Casimir or vice versa?
This question on a different SE site asks the question of what the etymology of the word "Xenomorph" is, and the consensus, from the comments at least, is that it has none - that it was purely invented for that movie. My question is, is this true? Did this word purely exist as a creation of the movies, as a portmanteau of two separate words? Or is there an origint that dates back to before the creation of these movies? I realize this is the ELU stack exchange, so I don't expect a detailed explanation of the etymological origins movie-side, I'm simply curious if there is any evidence that this word existed prior to the Alien franchise.
I looked up the definition of a Joke on Dictionary.com which gave me this "Something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act." If someone had the intention to make a joke but failed to provoke laughter is it still a Joke, and if someone did not have the intention to make a joke yet it provoked laughter, does it count as a Joke.
I proved the following statement: The composition factors of every finite solvable group are isomorphic to cylic groups of prime order. I want to use this result to prove that every two finite solvable groups of the same order have the same composition factors. If I knew that for every prime number in the decomposition of the order of the groups there is a composition factor that is cyclic of that order I would obviously be finished. However, I'm not even sure if this statement is true and I don't have a good idea on how to proceed in case the statement isn't true. Help will be appreciated! :)
A recent paper authored by Niayesh Afshordi and Joao Magueijo is in the news claiming to challenge Einstein's theory on constancy of light speed. It says light might have travelled with a faster pace during the initial stages of Big bang which apparently sets aside the inflation hypothesis. My question is whether it actually invalidates Einstein's relativity - which depends on constancy of speed of light. Or is it only applicable to the very early universe?
I'm writing a thesis in a scientific area, and in a draft I wrote that it was "not possible to tell which set of data is more accurate", meaning that it was not possible to tell which was closer to the true values of the thing being measured. One of my supervisors objected to this language, claiming that either one is accurate or one is not - that it's no more possible to be more or less accurate than it is to be more or less pregnant. For the purposes of this thesis I will simply avoid this phrasing, but out of curiosity: is he right?
I have been reading up on the correct use of 'which' and 'that' but I am still struggling. I am unsure if 'must be taken regularly' is restrictive or not. Both 'which' and 'that' sound correct to me. Can someone please tell me which word is correct to use in the following sentence: Arava is a strongly recommended medication, which must be taken regularly. Arava is a strongly recommended medication that must be taken regularly. Thank you.
I am looking for a word that describes a personality/person (not in a negative but neutral/positive way) that doesn't care abut anything, has a neutral opinion about most things, is very care free/laxed, etc. The closest I could think of is narcissist but it's not quite right. Is there such a word? I guess an example would be like "Dave doesn't care if we have a salad, a burger, or a soup for lunch, he is a/very ________." Thanks.
Given a finite dimensional algebra, what is the exact relation between the indecomposable projective modules, and a general indecomposable module? In the case of an oriented quiver without cycles for example, it is easy to find the simples, and the indecomposable projectives. What does this tell us about a general indecomposable module? I guess the main question is, to understand the complete representation theory of a finite dimensional algebra (or let's say a quiver), what else do we need besides the simples and the projective indecomposables?
I'm looking for an online coupled oscillation simulation. The best I have got so far is this --- https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/normal-modes/normal-modes_en.html But I'm looking for something which has more options like changing the mass of the objects, changing the spring constants, cutting off the springs. Please suggest if you have come across better simulations. PS : I apologize if this question does not belong here. I need a coupled oscillation simulator for my work.
Are there other usages of the expression "don't ask don't tell" besides the one from its Wikipedia page? Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting United States military personnel from efforts to discriminate or harass closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. Or is the expression also used in contexts not related to homosexualism in the military?
As part of a promotion a toy is put in each packet of crisps sold. There are eight different toys available. Each toy is equally likely to be found in any packet of crisps. David buys four packets of crisps. a. Find the probability that the four toys in these packets are all different. b. Of the eight toys in the packets, his favourites are the yo-yo and the gyroscope. Find the probability that he finds at least one of his favourite toys in these four packets. I'm stumped on b. Can someone explain how to do part b to me please?
A Group is an algebraic structure consisting of a set of elements together with an operation that combines any two elements to form a third element. The operation satisfies four conditions Closure Associativity Existence of Identity Existence of Inverse Intuitively I understand the purpose of Closure and Associativity Property. But I'm not getting the intuition behind Identity and Inverse. Whats the purpose of having these elements in a group. I searched everywhere and find only common definition which are straight forward. But nobody discuss why it's important. Can anybody explain it to me.
I recently saw a question today pertaining to Russian mathematics and I have a similar question but of a slightly different flavor. I've always heard that the Soviet Union had a history of producing influential mathematicians in geometry/topology and I'm curious if anybody knows of any worthwhile Russian texts on these subjects. I can speak Russian fluently and I'm interested in pursuing these fields and learning the perspectives of some of the old Soviet mathematicians. Would anybody know of such texts? Thank you.
What is the trajectory of a particle in a string or a rope that goes under the effect of a wave pulse. The illustration in this image is not what I am asking about, I just attached it in order to give you an idea of the case I mean. If you give me a picture of the trajectory, I'd be grateful. Thanks in advance.
I find typing `a word' and ``a word'' quite inconvenient, because I find it rather annoying to type ` and `` all the time. Instead, I'd prefer typing 'a word' and "a word" (which I often do when I don't pay attention, causing wrong displays). I was hoping the inputenc package would make this possible, but apparently it doesn't. Is there a solution for this?
It is well-known that in a Noetherian UFD, every height one prime ideal is principal. I was wondering whether this statement holds if one replaces 'UFD' with 'locally factorial domain'. I am aware of the fact that 'locally factorial' in general does not imply 'factorial', i.e., 'unique factorization' (though have never come accross locally factorial domains that are not UFDs), so I believe that there is a counterexample to this. However I cannot come up with any.
Can anyone tell the difference between these two phrasal verbs above? A soldier took the flag down from the flagpole. A soldier got the flag down from the flagpole. My father took the electric fan from the wall. My father got the electric fan from the wall. To me, these four sentences look exactly similar in meaning. In Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the phrasal verb "take down" is used as "disassemble" or "pull to pieces" :Take down the building, take a rifle down. Is it possible for the phrasal verb "get down" to be used as "disassemble"?
I've been told that HJB equations can be solved numerically. I know very little about the subject, could someone provide a couple of comments or a reference (ideally, one that is accessible for a layman) on: What are the main numerical methods used and, roughly, how do they work? What are the limitations of the methods? For example, does the complexity scale badly with dimension?
I'm doing some research for a book I'm writing, and, as the title implies, I'm looking to understand what happens when a supersonic jet sustains in-flight damage. Specifically, what happens to the occupants if the cockpit is breached? (I assume that this is why jet pilots wear masks?) Could a jet maintain super sonic speeds (for at least a short time) with such a breach? What would happen to a person in the cockpit without a mask if there was a cockpit breach at those speeds? Just how weird do things get at super-sonic speeds? Could a conventional airliner ever reach mach one in extreme circumstances? Many thanks!
First of all, how exactly do you entangle two atoms? I've heard about how they entangled atoms in quantum Teleportation experiments, but I don't get how they did it. I've heard that the atoms must "interact", but what exactly does that mean? Do they have to touch? Do they have to be within a certain distance - like a foot or an inch - from each other?
After spending some time researching about the centrifugal force, I now understand that it is needed in a non-inertial reference frame for Newton's Laws to hold true. However, I don't understand why we only feel the centrifugal force when moving in a circular path. For example, if you imagine yourself being spun around in a circle, then in your frame of reference you would feel yourself being pushed outwards. But since in your frame of reference you are stationary, the outwards force must be balanced by an inward pull (for you to remain stationary). So why would you only feel the outwards force but not the inwards force?
I am studying elementary particle physics and I am wondering what a parton level Feynman diagram is? My understanding is that partons are representations of the quark and gluon substructure of hadrons, and so I am assuming that any diagram that has a quark or gluon qualifies as a parton-level diagram, but I cannot find any reference to it in my notes or online. Could anyone explain (with examples preferably), what a parton-level Feynman diagram is?
There are many 'rules' on the net saying that a comma should be placed before the relative pronoun 'which' in a non-restrictive clause. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/relative-clauses) But would the sentence have the same meaning without the comma before the relative pronoun? Does omitting a comma before a relative pronoun change a nonrestrictive clause into a restrictive clause? For example: 'We ate the pizza, which was nice.' 'We ate the pizza which was nice.' If so does the same apply to relative pronouns other than 'which'?
I am wondering whether there are countably many or uncountably many spanning trees of the integer lattice rooted at a particular vertex, say the origin. In a spanning tree rooted at the origin there is a unique path from each vertex to the origin. There are countably many paths to the origin for each vertex, and each spanning tree is uniquely determined by the paths for each vertex in the integer lattice. There are uncountably many ways to choose a path for each vertex, but not every choice of paths will correspond to a spanning tree, so this doesn't help in determining whether there are countably many or uncountably many. Any help would be appreciated.
I'm taking an intro to proof via number theory class and I'm trying to prove that if a|b and b|c then a|c. So you write down there exist integers k and m such that ka = b and mb = c. Then you substitute ka in for b in the second equation and write (mk)a = c (by associative property). We know (mk) is an integer by the Closure property and so a|c. My question is, how do we know substitution is allowed (or is it not)? Is this something that can be proven from the Axioms of the Integers or something inherent in equivalence relations? Any insight would be awesome thank you!
The reason I ask this is because I was trying to draw multiple lines in pgfplots (I was trying to make a drawing showing how Riemann sums and integrals are connected). And after unsuccessfully trying to use a for loop for an hour or so, I found this solution, which was pretty unsatisfying since it's just a workaround for this particular case. And I thought that it would have been much easier with the power of Python. So, my question is: What do I lose by switching to matplotlib?
The difference between rational and irrational numbers is always stated as: rational numbers can be written as the ratio of two integers, and irrational numbers can't. However, why do mathematicians make a distinction between these two types of numbers? Why are integers special anyway, other than being historically significant? Is there any property that sets rational or irrational numbers apart, other than the way they are written in our number system?
I am interested in learning about duality in convex optimization. I am looking for something to read which is: Reasonably short. Fairly self-contained (if it is a chapter in a textbook, I would like to be able to read it without having first to read the preceeding chapters). Mathematically rigorous: everything is proved. Well-written, i.e., does not take ages to parse. The first one is particularly important for me - I am looking for something I can learn in a few days. The best I have found so far is the chapter on duality in Boyd & Vandenberghe. Does anyone have any other recommendations?
My recent assignment was to write an essay using a template my teacher had given me. The essay was supposed to begin with a phrase like 'It is common knowledge that' or 'there is no denying that', but I wanted to be more original and wrote the phrase 'It is no secret that', which I had heard used many times, instead. Later, my teacher told me the phrase was kind of obscure and most likely informal and that I shouldn't use it. So I want to find out if it is actually applicable and acceptable in an essay. P.S. I'm not a native speaker, so please don't judge me if I'm being stupid.
I have three sentences of which I'm not sure which one is grammatical, and why. It refers to the Eiffel Tower. It is used as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a century. It was used as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a century. It has been used as the symbol of Paris and of France for over a century.
After watching a movie in which levitating water was used as an illusion, I was curious to discover how it works. Unfortunately I cannot find any great explanations of the science behind the effect, only that strobe lights are what cause it. I want to know why strobe lights cause this effect. Here is a video of the illusion. It is my assumption that there is a steady stream of water, and the strobe lights are flickering on and off at a certain rate. Why then do I not see the entire stream of water being lit up, rather than individual droplets? What causes the droplets to appear to "move?" And why are there dark spaces between the droplets when there is apparently water there?
I'm wondering if there is a name for graphs such that if there is an edge between vertices A and B and a second edge between vertices B and C then there must be an edge between vertices A and C. My understanding is that this means that the graph is composed entirely of cliques. The graph need not be connected so it may contain multiple cliques, but there cannot be any edges between cliques. Is there a particular name for this structure? Thanks!
I am not a native speaker of the English language but have been living in United Kingdom for last couple of years. Once I was with my friend who was an Irish and I said "Its cold outside" and he said that I was wrong and should have said "Its cool outside". I am still not sure why I was wrong? Could someone really differentiate the use of word "cool" and "cold" in that case?
Is there a word that names an excuse made so as to not look stupid? Here is an example that actually happened: A guy walks up to a girl and starts talking to her. After talking for some time, the girl asks the guy to give her a kiss, but the guy refuses. So to this, the girl said, "I just wanted to test you if you are a good guy or a bad one."
This is probably a stupid question, but what makes the three magical elementary row operations, as taught in elementary linear algebra courses, special? In other words, in what way are they "natural" (as opposed to "arbitrary")? It seems that they're always presented in a somewhat haphazard manner ("these are the three legendary elementary row operations, don't ask why, they just are"). From what I understand, they satisfy some nice properties, such as the inverse of each being an operation of the same type, etc. But is there something that characterizes them, i.e. is there some definition of what constitutes "elementary" that's only satisfied by the three types of elementary matrices, and no other matrix?
There is a single obscure word whose very definition is when one says "I'm sorry for saying this, but" or "I hate to tell you this, but", and then proceeds to do the very opposite and attacks or lambasts the person they're talking to. For the life of me I can't find it and I've searched high and low. Can someone please help me? Many thanks and cheers!
I can't find anywhere the advantages of using Ridder's method over any other numerical method. My professor said that it specializes in solving a unique set of functions, but I can't find anything about it anywhere. When is Ridder's method more useful than something else and why? I realize it may sound like a silly question but I have to answer it for a project. Thanks!
Consider the set of words {one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten}. I want to write the associated partitions of this set under the relation R where two words are equivalent if they have the same number of letters. It's obvious one, two, six, and ten are all equivalent but I'm not exactly how to write the partitions with the curly brackets... Would it be {{one, two, six, ten}, {four, five, nine}, {three, seven, eight}}? Or would I write these partitions separately like {{one},{two},{six},{ten}}, {{four},{five},{nine}}, and {{three},{seven},{eight}}? What do the curly brackets actually say and what's the difference between the two ways I just wrote them?
As far as I know, the classical approach to special relativity is to take Einstein's postulates as the starting point of the logical sequence, then to derive the Lorentz transformations from them, and finally to derive the invariance of the interval and other consequences from the latter. I'm curious to know if it would be sufficient to take the frame-independence of the interval alone as the initial hypothesis to derive the other results (including the Lorentz transformations and the postulates). Is this possible, or do we have to prove that the interval is Lorentz-invariant first? If this approach is consistent, would it offer any technical advantage w/r/t the classical one?
Question: In Functional Analysis we can note things like: every closed subspace of a Banach space is Banach. In this case, what does "closed subspace" mean? Does this mean closed under the norm topology? Or does this mean closed in the sense that multiplication of scalars and addition of vectors is closed? Or does this mean closed with respect to limits? I'm reviewing this material and I realized that even though I have this in my notes a number of times I am unsure of what this actually is. I thought it was the second statement above, but the third statement makes the "every closed subspace of a banach space is banach" statement easy to prove.
Is the use of two or more successive relative clauses common or grammarically accepted in English? As in "The man who is sitting in the wheelchair and who has a broken leg. Or "The man who is sitting in the wheelchair and whose leg is broken." I know, of course, there are ways to shorten them, but I just want to know if it sounds grammatical to native speakers of English to use successive relative clauses, whether in spoken or written language.
My professor asked us a few questions in class and asked us to think about them. He's going to reveal the solutions on Thursday, but I want to understand it before he talks about it on Thursday in greater detail. If anyone could explain any of the things below, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. (and if you can't, don't worry- I can ask the professor after class on Thursday)
Suppose I have the sentence: "All apples are green." Although it is not a true statement, clearly it is a declarative sentence. Can any declarative sentence like this be made into an interrogative sentence (a question) merely by replacing the period with a question mark? The reason I ask is because the typical word order for such a question would be: "Are all apples green?" Notice that the verb has been moved to the beginning of the sentence. This is the way most of us would word the sentence when phrasing it as a question.