darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
The other day I saw this life-hack: And I was wondering how true it is. First of all, I always thought(listening to weather forecasts) that low-pressure atmosphere is what correlates with rain; although I never learned the argument behind it. Anyway, even if low atmospheric pressure correlates with storms and rain; how much(and in what sense) does this affect the bubbles in my morning coffee(if any)? My initial guess is that there should be a threshold pressure that will differentiate whether the bubbles will stick to an edge or suspend in the middle. Since this is an everyday-life question, I should say that experimental answers are welcome as well as rigorous theoretical ones. Also, I am wondering if we can make a barometer based on the bubbles in a mug of coffee? If so, how sensitive it would be?
Consider the following exchange: Alice: Did Charlotte send you that email? Bob: No, but I'm sure she'll send it eventually. In this case, there's no upper bound on the period of time in which Charlotte can send the email to Bob for his expectation to be met. Suppose I want it to be limited by some point in the past or in the future: Alice: Did Charlotte send you that email last month? Bob: No, but I'm sure she sent it eventually. Can Bob say that? What about: Alice: Did Charlotte send you that email last month? Bob: No, but I'm sure she sent it eventually-by-one-week-ago. And what about: Alice: Did Charlotte send you that email last month? Bob: No, but I'm sure she has sent/did send/will send it eventually-by-one-month-from-now. How can Bob express his certainty that the email was sent, or will be sent, at some point in time between the day Alice mentioned and the limit time Bob is referring to?
Here's the situation: You and your spouse are talking with a third person who is of the opposite gender as yourself. e.g., my wife and I are talking with a woman named - let's call her Joan. If I'm talking to Joan about my firstborn son, I don't want to say "my son" because it may imply that he is not also my wife's son. I also don't necessarily want to say "our son" because it may imply that Joan is the co-parent, even though everyone present knows that's not the case (it could be even more awkward with a couple talking to a man, and the wife is talking, because there might be a little more doubt about the biological parentage in that circumstance). Of course, I could gesture at my wife while saying "our son," but is there a verbal way of indicating the child belongs to myself and my wife without saying something long and awkward like "the son of my wife and myself" or "I and my wife's son" or "me and my wife's son" etc.? UPDATE The comments make sense; I guess I should have presented the scenario as my wife not being there; if in the course of the conversation I mentioned my wife, and then later my son, but said that ("my son" -- or "our son") those expressions would seem even awkwarder to me (without my wife present). But the commenter is probably right that I'm overthinking it.
The OpenStreetMap Sign Up page advises new users on its password policy: With OpenID a password is not required, but some extra tools or server [sic] may still need one. I've added [sic] immediately after the error in the middle of the sentence. When I read the sentence, I immediately thought "Which extra tools or servers need a password?" How do I express this while quoting the original text, so that I may bring attention to the error? Do I put [sic] inside the quote like this: Which "extra tools or server [sic]" need a password? Or put it outside the quote like this: Which "extra tools or server" [sic] need a password? Or do something else? (Would it be petty to call out a small error in this way?)
I was curious earlier about the use of various pronouns / possessives in English (primarily first person), so I chose a selection of them and was surprised to discover that, among other oddities, "I" has apparently undergone a rather drastic shift in use over the last century. I was wondering whether any further statistical analysis of usage had been done to describe these trends. Specifically, whether there's any statistical (so, not anecdotal or simply convincing-sounding) explanation for what patterns of use of the word might be responsible? What constructions fell out of use so markedly? What constructions have been revived, and which new ones are most responsible? P.S: This may be too broad a question, but since (as per the help center) it does appear to fall under the site's remit, I thought I might as well ask. Plus, my own research was getting me nowhere; somewhat unsurprisingly, adding the most common words in the language to a search string doesn't really narrow down results significantly.
Temperature is just an indication of a combined property of the masses of the molecules and their random motion. In principle, we can explain "no effective energy transfer between two conducting solid bodies in contact" via a condition in terms of the masses of the molecules and their speeds such that due to the collisions of molecules of two bodies, net energy transfer between two bodies is zero. But it would be a complex calculative work to derive this condition analytically so we use the temperature scale just as a phenomenological parameter to easily determine the condition of "no net energy transfer between conducting solids" for practical purposes. But it does not denote any fundamentally new property of the body separate from the already known mechanical properties of the same. Then why do we call it a fundamental quantity, e.g. in the SI list of fundamental quantities?
I always notice this weird thing and try to overcome it but cant. As shown in the image when I ride the bike by just one hand and pull the handle back say from the right side so as commonly the handle should rotate towards right and the bike should turn to right. But that doesn't happen. No matter what I do the handle turns to left and the bike always go to left. And when I try to push it forward so that it turns to left then the handle turns to right and so the bike also turns to right. As from how much I know about laws of motion I don't know why it happens. Please explain as it is too much weird and interesting for me.
What benchmarks or useful signs can be found to declassify neologisms? Obviously, inclusion in a dictionary is as likely as anything to declare a neologism a word but what happens just before that point? Note that I am not asking how long it takes to convert a neologism. I am asking if there are there any good indications of neologisms about to phase into the lexicon. The flip side is also interesting: When is it safe to say that a neologism is not likely to catch on without some drastic intervention? For instance, kipple is an interesting word with a distinct meaning but it seems so far outside of the cultural sphere that it seems safe to claim it will never become a recognized word. I suspect that answers to the first part (what makes a neologism stick) are likely to answer the second part via absence. As in, if a certain thing is a good sign for a neologism, its absence is evidence against the neologism.
I have never really found a way to comfortably comprehend the idea of time shift even though I know its not the hard part of relativity theory. In that light, can someone point out what is wrong or right about the following logic I'm thinking of here: The scenario is: There are four things in my universe: a wallclock, a flashlight, my wrist watch and myself. I shine the flashlight at my wrist which is in the same line of sight as the wallclock and see they two clocks are synchronized. Now my wristwatch, my flashlight and myself begin traveling away from the wallclock along the line of sight. It seems to me that logically the light I'm running away from will take longer to reach my eye, so that means I would see the wall clock run slower, no? But according to what I think I know, when a minute passes for me, more than a minute passes for the wall clock. I just feel like I must be looking at it wrong. Any pointers are appreciated. This is just recreational thinking...
So a company has n available projects and k employees on the bench. Each project has a "number of hours" associated with it. Each employee has an hourly rate that the parent company gets paid gets paid if he is on a project. Not all employees can be assigned to any project i.e. each employee has a subset of the n projects he can work on. I want to assign the employees to projects so that I can maximize what the company makes from the assignment. Each project can be assigned to only one employee. I am thinking of using dynamic programming but am unable to reach a recursion which I can use to fill a table. I am thinking along the lines of: Max_profit= max(For each employee -> {assign him to each of the projects on his available list and recurse with the remaining projects on the remaining employees or do not assign him to any project and recurse}. Any help will be appreciated!
Imagine a situation where one sees a woman without being aware of her surroundings and concludes wrongly something about her and the group she is a part of. For example, the person sees the writings on woman's face and proceeds to conclude that the she is part of a protest group, but is soon told otherwise. Now the person sees the bigger picture and learns that it was actually a football match. What may he respond? I'm looking for the right response. "Sorry, I was ... by that woman" "The woman ... me" maybe: "Sorry, I was misled by that woman" "That girl tricked me (into thinking it was a protest)" "I was deceived by that woman" There must be a more fitting word. I'm looking for a verb which describes the woman's unintentional misleading of a person into concluding wrongly. She was the reason why the person came to the wrong conclusion, because women rarely attend football matches so one concluded it was something more plausible. As if the person was tricked into believing something based on a single characteristics which turned out to be the one which can't represent the entire group.
My problem concerns a finite set of points in a space, for example (A,B,C,D,E). The information I have on the points is the distances of separations between the points and it comes in two sets. The distance of A from all of (B,C,D,E) and the distance of B from all of (A,C,D,E). The values of these distances are impossible if the points were to lie in a two dimensional space. To determine the minimum dimension that these points could lie in it has been suggested to me to try running an algorithm by the name of Multidimensional Scaling, MDS for short, that maps points in high dimensional space to lower dimensions. This algorithm that takes as input the pairwise distances between all of the points has a "stress" function can be evaluated to see how well these distances are maintained when mapped to the lower dimension. Therefore one possible way of solving my problem could be to to run the algorithm and start from the second dimension and increment upwards until the stress function approaches zero closely enough at which point I will have the answer for what dimension the points lie in. However the pairwise distance data I have is not complete and plugging in zeros for the missing data does not make sense because we believe the all of the points in question to be distinct.
In Russell's famous paradox ("Does the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contain itself?") he obviously makes the assumption that a set can contain itself. I do not understand how this should be possible and therefore my answer to Russell's question would simply be "No, because a set cannot contain itself in the first place." How can a set be exactly the same set as the one that contains it? To me it seems unavoidable that the containing set will always have one more additional level of depth compared to all the sets which it contains, just like those russian matryoshka-dolls where every doll contains at least one more doll than all the dolls inside it. Of course one can define something like "the set of all sets with at least one element" which of course would include a lot of sets and therefore by definition should also include itself, but does it necessarily need to include itself just because its definition demands so? To me this only seems to prove that it's possible to define something that cannot exist beyond its pure definition.
During my teenage years I got into arts and slowly but surely I continue to pursue different art forms (poetry, music, painting, photography, etc) but it was just recently that I got interested in mathematics. I used to hate it in high school, mostly because it was thought as formulas to memorize and the results were only right or wrong with no room to understand why. I was reading about mysticism & occultism which turned me on to numerology, and from there found myself mesmerized by pure mathematics. I'm not interested in applied mathematics, I just find it mundane and trivial while pure math is eternal, abstract and creative. Right now I'm reviewing my high school topics so I can go into more complex ones. Being using a college algebra textbook I found in a public library and reading Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang. I'm really a beginner still so if anyone can give me some tips or suggestions to grow into this divine pursuit of abstraction I'll appreciate it. Which topics would I need to have a good foundation to build my studies in pure, theoretical math?
I understand that water boils at lower temperatures at lower pressures, but I want to know what happens when external heat is supplied to a body of water at low pressure. Suppose I have a hot object in an enclosed chamber. I then cover the hot object with water, then vacuum the air out so the pressure drops. I know that with out the help of any additional heat the water can boil at low temperature because i have dropped the pressure, but what happens when I introduce the hot object? Does the water boil even faster because of the exchange of heat between the water and the hot object? What is the boiling point of the water at low pressure and the help of additional heat VS. the boiling point at just vacuum pressure?
When a person is employed by a company, they are normally issued some sort of equipment or tools that they are supposed to use in a regular course of their work. If they decide to quit the job or they are laid off they will have to return the tools or equipment in proper and working condition. The tools will be inspected, their number and condition, and in case anything is missing or broken that person will have to bear the cost of replacing that tool or instrument. But what word or phrase could I use to say that someone who is quitting his job is required to account for the condition of a larger, immovable piece of machinery that he worked on. Clearly I can't say that he was "issued with the machine" or that he "returned the machine", but he's still responsible that the machine is in proper and working condition. For example, there must not be missing parts, or defects due to his negligence or anything like that, for which he could be held responsible, and would need to pay for. How can I say that he was "put in charge of the machine" when he started working for the company and also that, on quitting the job, and inspection of the machine he is "relieved of the responsibility for it".
I am a casual TeX user. Mostly I have used it to type up some reports/homeworks for class in my graduate engineering work. In the past I have used document type "article". And then kept all the defaults. I need to self publish something online. At the highest level I would like to know: How do you setup a TeX document to self publish a book online? Some more low level questions: Is there a document type for "book" and what is its name? I am looking at Amazon Createspace. Amazon Createspace's requirements are: filetype=pdf, trim size, margins (gutter and outside margins). All of these various trim size, margins gutter/outside can be adjusted in the Tex document? Has anyone seen any good TeX templates for Amazon Createspace? If you could demonstrate how to tweak a specific "book" document type that would be very helpful also. Other than the above questions, please feel free to offer any other sort of help since I am completely new to this process (advice, links to good tutorials, links to wikibooks).
In the definition of an algebra over a field in the wiki entry , it states that an algebra over a field is a vector space equipped with a bilinear product. Question: Does anyone know how a bilinear product is defined? Then a unital associative algebra is defined: An algebra such that the product is associative and has an identity is therefore a ring that is also a vector space, and this equipped with a field of scalars. Such an algebra is called here a unital associative algebra. Question: It is stated that the associativity of the product and identity makes it a ring that is also a vector space. What about the left and right distributivity of multiplication over addition which is required for a ring? How is that guaranteed to be satisfied?
In ZFC, a cardinal is an isomorphism class of sets. However ZFC doesn't explicitly have classes; NBG, which is a conservative extension of ZFC does. There is no largest cardinal by Cantors Theorem There is no set of all sets - it is in fact a class. Classes do not have cardinalities, as these have been only defined for sets - but if one could define a cardinality for classes - wouldn't this, in some sense be a 'limit' of all cardinals in Set, including all large cardinal axioms? Thus, is it possible to extend the notion of cardinality in any significant way to classes? Apologies for the loose phrasing of this question. It was originally going to be a posting on Philosophy.SE, but I thought I would get better answers here.
Before I proceed, let me first say I have done research and understand the general idea between the two: summed up crudely reversible happens in a slower continuous manner while irreversible happens immediately due to a sudden change in conditions. Or mathematically, I suppose you could say the irreversible change isn't continuous and therefore the entropy formula is not integratabtle. But I was given an example of a box with a partition and gas in only one chamber. The removal of the partition and the expansion of the gas is a form of irreversible entropy because the gas fills the chamber almost instantaneously. So I'm left with the question: what if the partition doesn't disappear but is simply disconnected from the walls and the gas is able to push the wall as if the gas was doing work on a piston. This would then be seen as reversible correct? As you would be able to see the partition move in a continuous path across the box. If I am correct in my beliefs up to this point, then... What if the partition is made the size of an atom, wouldn't work still be done on the atom? Wouldn't it still take a continuous path across the box? So is this reversible or irreversible?
Suppose we are considering some fluid. As I currently understand, viscosity exists because of the following: supposing we draw one infinitesimal surface on the fluid, then the fluid parcels on either side have different momentum. Since a fluid parcel is made up of a large number of molecules and its velocity is the average velocity of those molecules if some molecules cross the surface into the other fluid parcel they will change the average velocity of the fluid parcel they migrated into. In that case, this will change the momentum of the fluid parcels and since change of momentum is related to force this will give rise to one kind of force which will be the viscosity force. Is that understanding right? I thought at first there was something to do with the collisions of molecules but what I said above is what I understood when I read about it on the book. If it's not like that, how we should think about viscosity qualitatively?
Not sure where else to put this as I did not see a StackExchange for legal questions. Will gladly remove if someone can suggest a more appropriate place. We are submitting a proposal in response to a government RFP. My client thinks that any and all uses of ensure, assure, or insure, (unless specifically about insurance) in any document (not just the specific proposal we are doing today) should be avoided as it exposes them to legal liability. So on a resume we can't say, "Mr. Jones utilized cutting edge technology to ensure optimal placement of gizmos". It is true that if we represent that we can do the work and then fail we will have some legal liability. But I don't believe the liability attaches in our proposal, it would be when we sign a contract. ETA: The done thing here is to use "make sure" in place of these words. Which would be legally identical, wouldn't it? Is it plausible that one could avoid liability by using "make sure" instead of "ensure"?
When a horse is being registered with the country's official registry, a clerk arrives to the stable to file the necessary paperwork. This process involves writing down the owner's data, the horse's parentage, measuring height at withers, and noting down locations of the special "fingerprinting features" that are unique to individual horse and remain constant through its whole life - the fur pattern along the mane. Specifically, the locations where the fur converges forming a small tip, diverges revealing a little skin, or forms a small whirl, clockwise or anticlockwise These are noted down with respective symbols on a chart of horse's neck, filed with the registry, and allow to uniquely identify the horse, say, in case of theft and dispute of ownership. What are these "features" called in English?
Apologies to all if this has been asked before, I searched but was unable to find one similar. This is a question that has been bugging me for a while that i haven't really been able to find a suitable answer for. I am aware that the space between an atoms nucleus and its electron cloud is teeming with virtual particles that allow the exchange of energy that give electrons an assigned energy level or 'shell' but what bugs me is about the space in between atoms. What is in between atoms? is it classifiable as a vacuum where nothing at all exists? I would find it hard to believe that atoms are pushed right up against each other at all times due to repulsive charges on the nucleus acting upon any other. I accept that the gap is unbelievably small but on the scale of atoms and electrons, how small are we talking? Is there even a gap at all? Do we know what is in between or is it unknown? is it a similar process to the virtual particles between nucleus and electrons? It is to my limited understanding that when particles "collide" there is no physical interaction, rather an exchange of energy through virtual photons. Is that what exists in all of these gaps? a constant exchange of virtual energy that acts as a consistent repulsion between all atoms?