darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
For someone maybe stupid question but im quite curious and didnt find an answer for this. If elecricity is just a flow of electrons and we can power things by movement of electrons, Why we cannot get electricity/energy from electrons that are orbiting every atoms nucleus. Is it related to uncertainity of the position of the electron or that the electrons of atom are not orbiting in the same direction? Or it is related to the charge of the whole atom and we actually cant separate the energy of electron and nucleus. Is it possible for the electrons of an atom to stop orbiting its nucleus. Thank you for your thoughts :)
A friend has said that there is a word meaning the outcome is something very different from that originally envisaged. For example: The Australian government introduced a "First time home owner" bonus. Where if you were buying your first house you would get a lump sum cash. Of course everyone selling a house in that price backet put the price up by the same amount as the lump sum and first time buyers didn't benefit at all. Does anyone know if there is a word meaning this and what it is?
I came across a question in a book. It says: If any of the following sentences show that something happened in the past, make the italicized verb simple past by adding -d or -ed. If you cannot tell whether the past or present is intended, do not change the verb. I realize that you are right. My Mother appear at the door. What should be the answers? I am a bit confused with those two sentences.
Theoretically we can convert a body into black hole by compressing its mass below some radius (known as Schwarzschild Radius). Suppose such object after becoming black hole has a radius which is comparable to atom and nucleus radius. Now my question is: what happens if we run this object into double slit experiment setup (single black hole at a time)? Shall we get interference pattern on the detector wall because its radius is in quantum domain (say we somehow know when on detector screen this black hole will hit) or simple-particle pattern (i.e. classical way) because of the mass associated with that black hole? If you have a really tiny black hole, will it behave as a classical particle, or will it exhibit quantum behavior?
I am learning english, an I am wondering if I would be "correct" in using only the past tense and never using the present perfect tense. I might be over-simplifying the english grammar ... So, are there some situations where it would be incorrect using the past tense instead of present pefect ? (the following link gives some axample where past tense shall be used instead of present perfect, but no example where present perfect shall be used instead of past tense: Present perfect for past action with present effect) Many thanks for your replies, Thierry
I have seen usage of both super and superb. I also searched for meaning of these two words and found they are almost identical. Example sentences - She is a super girl. His performance in the last game was superb. Use of any of those two words doesn't change the meaning of those above sentences either. Need suggestion of proper usage of these two words. When to use and why?
In Dutch we use the translated equivalent of not hindered with any knowledge to indicate somebody without any knowledge on the subject. It is not necessarily negative. It can mean that somebody is complete open and new to the subject, which may lead to new ideas, insights etc. But in a different context it may also carry a sarcastic tone indicating somebody with the biggest mouth and slightest knowledge. Is this equivalent comparable and usable or are there better constructs?
I have to prove the following: The line segment xz is an edge of the convex hull CH(A) iff all other points of A lie in one of the closed half-planes induced by the supporting line l(x, z) of xz, i.e., on (x, z) or to one side of the previous. So far the only idea is to start somehow with the basics that a convex combination is a linear combination of points but no idea of the next step
I am trying to compose a sentence, and I am currently stuck for the right word. I am trying to say: In a job interview, the audience would be the employer and the --------- That is the word I am looking for. I cannot put "employee" as he has not been employed yet. Is there a single word for someone looking for a job? "Job-seeker?"
What are the differences between net, network, mesh and grid? If I have a look at the OED entries, I have a feeling of rather a circular definition: mesh Material made of a network of wire or thread... net A piece of open-meshed material... grid A network of lines that cross each other... Could you list some most common collocations with each of the words and explain why this particular one is used? Such as why do we use mosquito net and not mosquito mesh?
Astroturfing is a word used to describe a fake or counterfeit grassroots campaign. The clever term is derived from the notion that one kind of fake grass is astroturf. Another more niche example is from mathematics. We call the "germ" of a function the part at the bottom of a stalk in some sheaf. We call this a germ because it is like the germ for the stalk of a plant. In both of these examples, one makes an analogy to create a term, and then related terms, carry on this analogy to build terms related to the first. Is there a specific name for this sort of term?
There is always a debate around Earth Hour every year, and the opposite side of Earth Hour usually claims that The (sudden) decrease and increase of the power usage in the start and end of Earth Hour will cause much more power loss (than the save of power), and even do damage to the power supply system. Is this statement true? To what extent? Thank you very much.
I'm currently working on some graph theory, and I'm checking the robustness of graphs, by removing random vertices from a graph and then check how many vertices are outside the giant component. Then I'll do that for a lot of vertices, and plot them using ListPlot. This takes along time to calculate, is there a way I can visualise it, that it plots something everytime a value is calculated. thisFunctionTakesVeryLongAndReturnsAList := .... ListPlot[thisFunctionTakesVeryLongAndReturnsAList [graph]] thisFunctionTakesVeryLongAndReturnsAList calculates a value that can be plotted all the time
If two stick two magnets the mass will be less than sum of the individual magnets. They lose certain mass while they stick together. Probably, they release some energy. My question is: when the magnets are separated, whether their original mass is restored to its original level? If that is right then after performing sticking and separating several times of the two magnets, they should vanish.
Possibly two questions in here: Are these sentence constructions logical, and if they are, why are they different? I swam across the Ocmulgee River. I swam across the Pacific Ocean. I swam across the Red Sea. I swam across Lake Winnipeg. I can't think of a way of phrasing the lake example while using an article with a proper noun. I thought at first it was because Lake Winnipeg is different; it's generic portion (the "Lake") comes first and the name of that body comes second, but I swam across Falls Lake is the same. Yet the sentence I swam across the lake sounds right to me. ...Why?
There is a similar question that gives a bit of an explanation, but little mathematical proof here: force applied not on the center of mass I would like mathematical proof that shows that the velocity of a rigid body when a force is applied to the center of mass is equal to the velocity of the same rigid body when the same force is applied to a point on the body other than the center of mass. Thanks in advance!
Via Cantor's back-and-forth method we know that the linearly ordered set of all rational numbers and the linearly ordered set of all real algebraic numbers are isomorphic. But from the point of view of what people usually do with rational numbers or with algebraic numbers, the order isomorphisms yielded by Cantor's proof are icky. Are there any that are well behaved and have nice mathematical properties?
Okay, so recently I ended up saying this: Well, that is unfortunate... sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't. Okay. You know, just saying "Sometimes it happens" already tells you that something happens sometimes and other times it doesn't. But, sometimes, I need to make very clear that this "something" doesn't happen always. That's why I say sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn't But is there a way to shorten this phrase? To make it simpler, but still making very clear the fact that this "something" may not happen? Repeating "sometimes" is not very much of my liking...
There are many businesses that hosts other related or unrelated business as part of their service. Example a plaza/shopping mall will have various stores, owned and operated by others, a university may host other organisations such as book stores, restaurants, computer stores etc. The University of Technology, Jamaica has an organisation/business called the Technology Innovation Centre (TIC), that is a business incubator. TIC itself hosts various businesses not relating to the University. All these hosted businesses uses the address and name of their host as part of their own address.What name is given to these type of businesses that play hosts to other businesses?
I have a forum where you can Like a reply. After you press that button it changes from Like to Liked. Now I want to add a Dislike button so I would like to replace the "Liked" text for something that would also include "Disliked". I think the word should be close to something like "Done", "Voted", or "Pressed" but also related with the original text. Do you have any suggestions?
I am working on displaying source code for which I pass a path to a macro. Now I am wondering if it is possible using xstring or stringstrings to match from after the last delimiter, i.e. / to the end of the string to determine the filename. Example: I might pass ../code/subfolder/project/code.java to the macro for which I want to extract the substring code.java. It seems easy to match the first occurrence of a character, but not the last.
I am aware that the universally accepted style is to put an apostrophe-s at the end of the second possessor's name. Example: Amy and Steve's car My question is not whether that is the common rule; I know it is. My question is whether anyone knows of a style guide, grammar, or other authority that condones writing this in the usual style of a plural possessor; that is, with an apostrophe on the end of the compound/plural owner's name: John and Jacks' house John Merrill, Stephen Arthur, Chuck Williams, and Donald Smiths' law firm Thanks!
In photography the negative means the lightest areas of the photographed subject appear darkest and the darkest areas appear lightest. But I was wondering: is this the way how negative should actually be described at all? What if the negative just meant that you reverse the (visible) spectrum. What kind of image would that produce? Would the whites still be whites? (unlike in the "traditional" negative where white -> black)
In order to answer a question I have to take a look at a document that is not with me by the time that question was raised. Which of these sentences is more suitable to express that idea? I am not able to answer your question without taking a look at document X; I cannot answer your question before taking a look at document X; Feel free to suggest any other sentence that you may think appropriate.
The dispersion of white light beam while passing through a triangular prism is well known. Considering the reversibility of optical path, it should be possible to reverse the experiment. How can one implement the reverse experiment of lights' dispersion in experiment? What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of the incident light beam(s) in order to obtain a white light beam after passing through a dispersive prism? For example, can one remove some of light beams with specific wavelengths or adjust their intensity but still obtains white light beam?
In my understanding, Alternating Direction Method for Multipliers (ADMM) is widely viewed as a tool to parallelize large-scale convex-optimization problems arising in statistics and other related fields. The following paper by S. Boyd is a good reference https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/pdf/admm_distr_stats.pdf But one can also use, like Help needed to define a constraint in an optimization problem?, ADMM to solve non-convex problems I am looking for a paper that I can cite when ADMM is used for solving otherwise non-convex problems?
Initialisms are pronounced as words and acronyms are spelt letters. However, some words sound the same, said and spelt. e.g. Input Output can be abbreviated as IO. It can be spelt I-O or pronounced Io as in the moon/god. There is no way to tell the difference in how it is said or written. Is a word which is pronounced the way it is spelt, an initialism, an acronym or both?
The plural of 'passerby' is 'passersby' with an 's' acting like an infix (W-B says that this is the only plural form of the word). This seems like a very interesting exception, so I thought I would ask a question. Are there any other English words that are made plural by an 's' put inside the noun? One criterion has to be met: the singular noun is composed of one (unhyphenated) word only.
A customer want to place his gold to bank account. He shows up in a bank with his gold bars and says that he wants to put it to his gold account. I was unable to choose the correct word here. Customer delivers his precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer leaves his precious metal bullion in the bank. Customer gives up his precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer leaves out his precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer leaves his precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer submits his precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer puts away precious metal bullion to the bank. Customer ... precious metal bullion to the bank. Which word should I choose?
I am confused about some definitions in logic/ axiomatic set theory: We stated in our logic lecture the ZFC axioms and called the members of a ZFC-model "sets". But to define formulas and structures, we needed sets as in "A structure is a non-empty set with functions and relations" and also for formulas, we needed, e. g. a variable set. Could you help me solving my problem? For me it currently seems circle-reasoning. Best regards
A toy is randomly put in a given Cereal box as a promotional gift. There can be N different types of toys and each one can be of any type N (IID). (a) Find the expected number of cereal box one has to buy before she can have atleast one toy of each type, (b) If she has already collected m toys, what is the expected number of different toys she has collected. Can someone explain how to model this problem using Indicator Random variables.
"Gas prices are going up." Which of the following is also a general statement about gas prices: The price of gasoline is going up. The gas price is going up. And could you tell me why? I have this question because although I know, for example, both "Tigers are big" and "The tiger is big" are generic constructions, but I am not sure how to use "the" when it is a noun phrase instead of a single noun.
This is going to sound stupid but anyways. I am currently in a physics class and my teacher likes us to use dimensional analysis which I do not understand how to use or what to do with it! So firstly can someone explain that? And secondly, I can do all of the work (my way) and show all the work and my units, he just doesn't know "how I did it" but I still get the right answer and have all the work stated and he docks points for this, is that at all fair? Any opinions from other teachers would be greatly valued here.
I'm using in hopes that in the following sentence. However, it does not seems to be formal and appropriate for a scientific paper. Is there any similar phrase that has the same meaning but more formal ? Thanks. To overcome this crucial issue, a popular solution has been used where a task is assigned to many workers and the results for this task are aggregated in hopes that the aggregated result is actually the correct one.
I have a PDF document, evidently produced using LaTeX, which has wide white margins and crop marks. I'd like to remove these margins and corresponding crop marks. Is there a tool to do it automatically? EDIT Werner suggested to use pdfpages package to include PDF's pages in a LaTeX document. I should actually include only the pages of the PDF I'd like to crop and use options to trim it. I'm waiting for an help in recognizing the most appropriate options to do so.
Is there a word that describes the case of using an adjective to describe a noun that already suggests as much? Examples the pretty model won all of the awards the smart genius answered every question the dangerous monster ate the man the fast jet the floating buoy Some of these examples might not be the best, but I hope they give the right idea. I know they are superfluous, but I'm not trying to define the adjectives themselves, but the act of using them.
With How do I change color settings in TeXStudio? and How can I set a dark theme in TeXstudio? I managed to change the colour of the editor (in this case to a darker theme to prevent eye strain). Now I would like to change the colour of The toolbars The Structure and Message / Log File menus The line numbers at the left of the editor The Line, Visual column, Text column counter below the editor I already tried the advanced options from Options -> Configure TeXstudio.
I have observed while driving at night the yellow marks on road seem white. What I understand is the color of an object is the visible light wavelengths it does not absorb. In other words the yellow line does not absorb yellow light. The head light of my car is normal and thus is slight yellow light. So from my understanding the color of the line should not really change and still be yellow. Can somebody confirm the same observation (or is something wrong with my eyes) and tell me the reason.
On points arranged in a parallelogram lattice, like on the image in this Wikipedia article, how to calculate the maximal distance any point on the plane may have to its closest point from the lattice. Or alternately, the maximal radius of a disk that can be placed on the plane such that it does not contain any point of the lattice. As input I have the side length and both diagonals of one possible parallelogram that fits the lattice. Edit: I meant the lattice not grid, i.e. only the sparse set of intersection points of a parallelogram grid.
As you see in the picture, the blonde woman is kicking another woman in the stomach. Can the blonde woman say: Take my kick. (I mean that she wants to give her kick to another woman and she humorously offers the other woman to receive her kick) And what is your opinion about this picture? Can the African woman say: Take my punch. If these sentences are not correct, what would a native speaker suggest? Thank you .
I am in search of a word that has the meaning of 'capacity of a person to habituate to a new environment'. I can use adaptability. Like he is more adaptable than others. But 'adaptable' may not necessarily imply to a place, it may imply adapting emotions also. So is there any word that signifies the capability of a person who habituates to a new environment quickly. f I call it X. I can say as. He is Xer than others.
I've just saw in Maclane and Moerdijik's book ("Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos Theory") about the Cohen forcing viewed in a categorical way using Topos theory. Is there any reference for forcing techniques using categories and Topos? Can the other kinds of forcing (iterated, Prickry, etc.) be viewed in the same (analogous) way? Any reference for the last question? Thanks in advance.
Many intuitive knot invariants including Jones' polynomial are inspired by statistical mechanics. Further profound connections have been explored between knot theory and statistical mechanics. I was looking if similar connection have been found for graph invariants. I am interested to know if any attempts have been made form statistical physics community to solve graph isomorphism problem. Since both knot problem and graph isomorphism are problem about testing structural equivalence there might be connection between them.
I was reading linear vector spaces. When doing some exercise to prove some statements based on the properties defined for linear vector spaces, i suddenly noticed, outside the things defined, i'm using a common notion without proof. This notion also surfaced when i was studying Group theory. After giving a thought i come to the conclusion that i've used it in all systems which are modeled after euclid. I mean first i give some postulates. Then i derive statements from those postulates. Euclid also has it as "common notion" : If equals are added to equals, the wholes are equal. So i started wondering that if anybody challenged this or attempted to build a system without this.
If the explanation for the B-field due to a current in a wire that I've heard (length contraction by moving electrons in conductor) is true, would you really need to be moving to feel the "B-field" of this wire? What I mean is, if the electrons within the conductor are moving quickly enough, then they will already be (barely) length-contracted along their path. Since there is no "moving positive-charge", as electrons are the only charges that are moving, wouldn't this length-contraction of electrons immediately come off as an increase in negative-charge density?
I'm interested in quantum mechanics book that uses high level mathematics (not only the usual functional analysis and the theory of generalised functions but the theory of pseudodifferential operators etc, certainly the modern mathematics). If there isn't something similar please give me a reference to the book that is strictly supported by mathematics (given a set of mathematically descripted axioms author develops the theory using mathematics as a main tool).
In this Phys.SE answer Ron Maimon stats: there is no relativistic particle formalism in which the particles have postive energies and casual propagation. You can either deal with fields in which case the particle notion is non local or you can deal with particles. But then they go back in time. Is this true that there can be no particle interpretation where particles only travel forward in time? I'm not asking about path intergrals but the particle interpretation in general, I'm also aware the field interpretation is the more popular.
We easily find probabilities by counting the number of ways we can meet a condition and dividing it by the number of total possible outcomes. This is using combinatorics to solve probabilities. Im looking for a scenario, or a type of complicated combinatorial problem, in which the approach at counting the number of ways of meeting a condition is actually easier by multiplying the probability of meeting the condition (determined in other ways) by the total possible number of outcomes. I realize this may be an absurd question, but its been in the back of my mind for some time. Can anyone imagine up such a problem? This is for the sake of education, so that we may all learn of new problem solving techniques.
What is wind? I think it is kind of a vibration of air particles. If so, is it a longitudinal or a transverse wave? Or is it just a bunch of air particles being pushed? Smells disperse in wind so the latter explanation might be a better. And breath also consists of movement of air particles. But how can wind travel so far without stopping? Can it be the pressure produced by temperature difference pushing it? So could you say it can be attributed to a wave? Any help would be appreciated, thank you.