darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I am currently studying English and as such enjoy reading English books from time to time; for instance I have recently been reading the fifth book of A Song of Ice and Fire since the French version was not to be released anytime soon. As I read it I often came across a grammatical form I had never encountered previously, this form being the usage of "for" to introduce propositions as per this example: "We must learn english, for it is one of the most widely-spoken language." My question if the following: is this form correct (I do think it is), and if it is then is it still used today? I really like this usage of the "for" preposition but still, I'd like to be sure it can be used before actually using it (in class or elsewhere). Thanks! EDIT: Upon further searches, now knowing that "for" is in that case a conjunction, I found out that this form is perfectly correct - though it is more of a literary form.
I am discussing with a friend (over email) the pros and cons of various interview styles. At some point in the email I write: "Ideally the candidate will demonstrate X." Then in the next sentence I want to describe, by comparison, what action by the candidate would not be ideal. I was initially tempted to write: "What would be bad would be if the candidate did Y" but the bold-text "would be" sounds wrong as used here. Instead, I feel I should write something like: What would be bad is if the candidate did Y" because I'm saying that [the action that would be bad] = Y, as opposed to [the action that would be bad] would be Y. In other words, I know that the action Y would be bad. Neither phrase sounds perfect though. I would appreciate any explanation of a 'correct' phrasing! Also I am from the UK, but living in the US, so I am interested in usage in each place (if there is a difference). Finally, I apologize if I have mis-tagged this question - it seems to me to be a question about use of either the conditional tense or the subjunctive mood, but this could be wrong.
My question is basically this, if I am only able to measure the total electric field and the magnetic field at a few discrete points in space and time, is it possible to separate the convective and the inductive electric field? Here is the background. Consider the geomagnetosphere. There is a background geomagnetic field. There is a convective background electric field. Now picture a bunch of charged particles in addition with various energies and velocities so they are guided by the fields and in return modify the fields and so on. There are also other oscillations in both fields introduced from outside. So now we have an induced electric field. I then throw a satellite in there which reports the total magnetic field vector and the total electric field vector but these are only discrete values in space and in time and I have a very small sample of the entire magnetosphere. Is this even theoretically possible? It seems like at least some theoretical work must have been done on this. If someone can nudge me in the right direction or point to some references, it will be a great help.
The Boltzman approach to statistical mechanics explains the fact that systems equilibriate by the idea that the equillibrium macrostate is associated with an overwhelming number of microstates, so that, given sufficiently ergotic dynamics, the system is overwhelmingly likely to move into a microstate associated with equilibrium. To what extent is it possible to extend the story to nonequilibrium dynamics? Can I make concrete predictions about the approach to equilibrium as passing from less likely macrostates to more likely macrostates? (Wouldn't this require us to say something about the geometric positioning of macrostate regions in phase space, rather then just measuring their area? Otherwise you'd think the system would immediately equilibriate rather than passing through intermediate states.) Can the fluctuation-dissipation theorem be explained in this way? Edit: Upon a bit more poking around, it looks like the fluctuation-dissipation theorem cannot be explained in this way. The reason is that this theorem discusses the time-independent distribution of fluctuations in some macroscopic parameter (e.g. energy of a subsystem) but, as far as I understand, it does not describe the time dependence of such a parameter. In particular, I'd really like to understand is if it's possible to explain things like Fourier's Law of thermal conduction (that the rate of heat transfer through a material is proportional to the negative temperature gradient and to the cross-sectional area) with a Boltzman story. According to these slides, it's surprisingly hard.
After having switched computer I had to reinstall TeXLive and TeXMaker on my Mac OS X Yosemite, however, after having done this I whenever I try to compile with (pdflatex) TeXMaker I get the error: log file not found. I am aware that this means that TeXMaker is not able to find my TeX distribution, but what baffles me is that if I compile manually via the terminal with pdflatex test everything works like a charm. I have tried to reset the settings (even though they should be after a clean install), without luck. If I first compile via the terminal and afterwards via TeXMaker, I do not get an error, but it does not compile either. Any suggestions? EDIT: I tried to remove the installation and install it using macTeX in stead of the general installer for Unix systems. Of some reason this helped, even though it have installed the same version in the same location on my harddrive.
I am searching for the "most natural" definition of a (geometrical/space) point as an element of "something" in mathematics (I am trying to design a small computational geometry library on strong mathematical basis). For example, for a vector, it's easy: a vector is an element of a vector space, end of story. Same for a tensor: a tensor is an element of the tensor product of vector spaces. But how to define a point in the same way? Can a point be defined as an element of an affine space or as an element of a topological space? If both are true, what are the difference between the two types of points, and what would be the most natural (it's subjective) approach to define a point in geometry? Moreover, do other approaches exist (a point is an element of XXXX)? EDIT: I know that a point is an axiom/primitive notion but to design the library I need to make a choice. And I want to know the best option...
This is a question I have been wondering about the last few days, and I'm still not sure if it should be posted here on in the music section, so please excuse me if it's misposted. Hatsune Miku is a world-wide popstar, taking news and filling concert halls. What makes her unique is that she is not a human person. She is a VOCALOID, a program. While browsing the interwebs I started to realize I was in conflict with myself. What would be the correct way refering to Miku: "What is Hatsune Miku?" or "Who is Hatsune Miku?" From my perspective I see it as "What" defines an object while "Who" defines a living persona, an identity, person you can refer to. Miku efficiently takes both spots as she is originally only a created persona, but have also performed live on concert. Thanks in advance.
It'd be nice to be able to style words or sentences or subsections based on arbitrary metrics. For example, it might be useful to highlight words based on their length - bolder highlighting for longer words, so that you can zoom out of the document, and get a quick picture of where it is getting complex. Another example along the same lines might be to highlight paragraphs based on their readability score. For the last example, this might involve something like converting the paragraph to plain text, calculating the score (externally?), mapping the score to a colour, then applying the color to the paragraph. Is it possible to do something like this on a document-wide basis? ie. not having to add a command around every paragraph? Can the length of a word/sentence/paragraph be easily calculated within tex, or should this be done externally?
I've read questions like this one, this one, and this one which ask why we use complex numbers instead of real numbers, and that's one half of the question, but the other half, which I've never seen conclusively explained, is why we use complex numbers as a wrapper at all. From what I understand, there's nothing special about complex numbers in this case; they're simply a container (a struct, for those familiar with programming) for a pair of numbers which describe magnitude an phase. Is there a mathematical or convenience reason why, traditionally, FFT uses complex number systems for this purpose? Is there a historical aspect to it? Is there any reason why we shouldn't just describe the magnitude and phase as a vector or some other similar structure?
Reading this explanation, I've understood that the divergence in computation of Casimir force on two parallel conducting plates is because of an unphysical model of ideal conductor, which makes EM field vanish on its boundaries. This looks much like unphysical model of rigid body in relativistic mechanics. Still, zeta regularization appears to somehow correctly remove the divergence and give sensible results. This must mean that effectively, it replaces our "too ideal" conductor with a "moderately ideal" one. So, the boundary conditions for EM field are no longer as simple as zero. So, my question is now: what boundary conditions does zeta-regularization implicitly impose on the EM field instead of the original ones? Does such change of boundary conditions in fact mean that the force will depend on which conductor the plates are made of?
Why isn't this possible? I've seen the ducted fans, it works (even if it is very rough). I've also seen the magnetic boards that hover above a special magnetic-reactive surface. But that isn't true hovering in the sense of usability as you cannot leave that surface and you cannot surely expect a proper surface to be everywhere so your hoverboard is quite ineffective as the ATV that we've always wanted in a device like this. So my question is this: why can't a device with a strong powerplant charge electromagnets that are facing eachother to repel, hover? I have had this idea since I was a child but no one really can tell me why or why it won't work. I do not understand physics that well and I am sure there is an obvious answer. It makes no sense to me why it won't work.
If I have an X amount of randomly generated positive numbers, what type of algorithm could I run to find the following: Precisely where the largest difference exists between two of the numbers? How much is that difference? Where does the smallest gap exist? How much is that difference? Generate a list of all differences and how many occurrences there are of each difference It has been a while since I have taken any sort of math class, so pardon the potentially inaccurate tags. Ideally I'm looking for a way to generate a list of all the differences, and then place those differences into a descending order. Once the list of all the differences into a descending order is created, we still need to be able to identify where in the original set of numbers, each particular difference takes place.
I am writing a story with a character who was a prince born albino in a very superstitious country. His Uncle intensely feared killing him, as he believed it would release a demon inside of him. This myth becomes the only thing that saves his life when his kingdom is overthrown as a child. He learned that having people falsely fear him keeps him safer than trying to dispel the rumors. I need a term for someone who encourages his own awful reputation, so that he can win through fear without having to actually be fearsome. Think of Captain Shakespeare from Stardust as being a good example. The word in a sentence may be used much like the words illusion or facade. I am not necessarily looking for a noun or an adjective in particular; just a word, or perhaps a short collection of words to explain or describe the concept. Several example sentences include: "He was known to ____" "His ____ was falling to pieces".
I am in a bind, trying to wrap up my thesis in two weeks time. My university requires me to use their citation style, which they only provide for endnote or zotero. Since all my citations are in bibtex (which I know, and I have no time to experiment with other bibliographic formats or programs, trying to make them collaborate with latex) I wonder if there is any possible way to convert a citation style language (csl) style file into a bst file that I can use. That would make life so much easier. I have googled and searched the forums that I know of, but all answers I have seen are discouraging. They are however not up to date. If someone knows of a procedure to accomplish csl->bst style file I would be highly indebted.
I am just going to give an example of what I mean using Skolem's Paradox. I don't want to get into Skolem;s Paradox itself or its "resolution." Skolem's showed that in first-order formulations of ZFC, whether some set A is countable depends on what is in the model. For example, take a model M of ZFC (assuming there is one). Let M satisfy the statement "S | S is countable." This means there exists a bijection from S to {naturals} in M (i.e. there is a particular set of ordered pairs in M). Now, remove all and only those bijections from M and call this new model M'. Assume M' is still a model of ZFC. Is S still countable? No. Countability is relative to the elements of M's domain. How how does a mathematical object, e.g. a countable set, relate to the real world? Is it in the real world? Is is instantiated in the real world? What is meant when mathematicians say (e.g. as Cantor's Theorem says) that uncountable sets exist? That is, what is the relation of math-objects to the real world?
I decided to study Euclid for fun. I have Oliver Bryne's edition. I also want, as much as possible, to construct the figures myself, to get a deeper understanding. How did people traditionally do this? I have a compass, and a ruler. So far I've constructed the first three propositions from book one. However, it's not clear to me how I ought to draw the fourth proposition, or whether it's only meant to be understood. The later propositions use the earlier propositions where equal line lengths were drawn using circles. If I want to use those same deductions to construct later propositions, should I simply copy the line length with a ruler? Surprisingly, google didn't turn up much guidance for this project. I'm assuming earlier generations of pupils would have drawn Euclid, no?
From looking at undergraduate mathematics programmes it's quite apparent that mathematics degrees are demanding, one could even say the work load is grueling. However I'm certain that there are things that one could do to prepare in advance for the rigours of such a degree. What i'd like to know is what foundations must be in place so that the experience of learning mathematics at university is an enjoyable one. Enjoyable in the sense that if you're exposed to a new topic you aren't floundering and you can dive straight in and enjoy the exposition and the process of learning, without having to go backwards plugging in numerous gaps and addressing other deficiencies in your knowledge. I'm certain that a good grounding in pre-calculus mathematics and calculus are a prerequisite but aren't all that's needed. What are the things that must one know in order to have a solid grounding in mathematics, with the aim of studying mathematics at a higher level? Edit: Let's assume it's a quite a demanding degree programme: MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, etc.
I was thinking deeply about figurative language today, and I read a sentence that must be an example of a specific type of figurative language, but I didn't remember learning about it and couldn't find it on a reference I use. The sentence, from Street Love by Walter Dean Myers, is: Could it even withstand the voltage of / His mother's shock? Myers builds the metaphor of voltage off of one definition of the word shock, while also calling the other to mind, since the mother would be surprised/upset at this event. It seems to me that there ought to be a word for this! Any ideas? I found a similar example, too. It was used as an example of parallelism on the site I was referencing: She liked sneaking up to Ted and putting the ice cream down his back, because he was so cool about it. It ins't a metaphor, but it similarly uses both meanings of the word (cool, in this case). I thought it might be helpful as a clarifying example.
As I understand it, there is a large contingent of physicists who believe that the measurement problem is "solved" by decoherence, without, for example, needing to postulate the existence of "many worlds." Yet at the same time my understanding is that in the decoherence picture there is only unitary evolution of the wave function, and that while the appearance of collapse is explained, the global superposition of states still in fact exists, and whether or not multiple states within the universal wave function observe the same appearance of collapse (but to different eigenvalues) is a question that is left completely unaddressed. Therefore my reading of the decoherence picture is that it is virtually identical to an Everettian approach, except that it purposefully ignores an obvious interpretational consequence of its description. Is this true, or do decoherence-based approaches somehow argue that there really is only a unique observer within the universal wave function that observes a collapse to unique eigenvalues, and that there is some form of symmetry breaking that allows this to happen at the expense of all the other potentially conscious components of the universal wave function?
My colleague and I are working on our style used in communications, and we have a question around whether it's acceptable to use "you're" or if we should always write "you are". Our style guide says: Our tone is conversational, honest, thoughtful, but never familiar or using slang terms The specific example we're looking at would be in an email from an IT department of a company to employees with instructions on installing a new system. We want a sub-heading at the end to conclude the message. And so the heading would read either: You're ready to use [product name]! You are ready to use [product name]! Which better meets the requirements of our style guide? Is you're too familiar? Slangy? Is you are too stilted to be conversational? Does it convey thoughtfulness? Could one form be more appropriate than another in different circumstances? There has been discussion on using contractions in formal writing (of which this question has been tagged as a duplicate), but I feel our style guideline is more nuanced than just "formal".
I cannot hear the distinction between certain sets of vowel sounds. Normally the words in each of these sets (and of several others) all sound identical to me: Don, Dawn; marry, merry, Mary; ah, awe; cot, caught; ferry, fairy. If the speaker's accent heightens the differences between them I might be able to tell them apart, but cannot tell which word is intended by which of the different pronunciations. I can do that only from context. This may not be uncommon in American English; maps of regional variations in pronunciation suggest that about half of the country pronounce Don and Dawn the same way. This would explain why I hear those names the same way, but only if I lived in that part of the country. What is this trait called? I wish I knew.
In any sizable system, the number of equilibrium states are much, much greater then the number of non-equilibrium states. Since each accessible micro state is equally probably, it is overwhelmingly likely that we will find the system in an equilibrium state. However, for a closed system, one that does not interact with any external system, the number of micro states is fixed. Therefore the entropy is fixed. At any given time, the system will be in one of its micro states. Even if the system is in a micro state that does not look like equilibrium from a macroscopic point of view, its entropy will remain the same, since entropy is a property of all the micro states, not just a given micro state. So, are the number of accessible micro states (and hence entropy) of an isolated system constant?
There is a mother, Ann, who has a stereotypical 'good' personality: she is religious, a teacher, and a very generous lady. Her daughter, Emily, isn't the nicest lady: she whines a lot, insults people, and is ignorant to her family history. My professor asked to mention in my essay that Emily's personality was an 'un-improvement', as compared to her mother's. I can't find a way to say this without sounding awkward. What I have so far is: "Emily's personality shows a degraded structure as the generations of her family trickle down." I already know that I do not want to use that sentence: it sounds awful and confusing, in my opinion (I can bet that you had to read it twice before understanding what I was trying to say). Can anyone else think of a way I could say this?
When I've attended math competition discussions, I've often heard people remark "oh, this is a famous problem" or say that it's similar to one. Most of them I've actually never heard of before. Competition books tend to have a vast list of past problems, and I haven't been able to sift through and tell which ones are supposedly well known and which ones aren't. Contest math isn't especially a priority for me, but it would be nice to at least know of certain problems I should be familiar with. Could someone give a list of some problems and technique that are part of the "folklore", so to speak? I'm interested in any competition topic, but to narrow the discussion, let's try to emphasize competition problems in calculus/analysis (sequences, series, integrals, etc.)
I was wondering if there are some general definitions for direct product and for direct sum, for example in category theory or in set theory, so that the concepts for vector spaces, Abelian groups, rings can be unified, or in other words, the common features of those specific concepts can be abstracted? In particular, the following quotes from Wikipedia (direct sum and direct product) seem to make attempts to reveal their relation to Cartesian product in set theory and (co)product in category theory, but also say that the relation is not always true. one can often define a direct product of objects already known, giving a new one. This is generally the Cartesian product of the underlying sets, together with a suitably defined structure on the product set. More abstractly, one talks about the product in category theory, which formalizes these notions. one can often define a direct sum of objects already known, giving a new one. This is generally the Cartesian product of the underlying sets (or some subset of it), together with a suitably defined structure. More abstractly, the direct sum is often, but not always, the coproduct in the category in question. Thanks and regards!