darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I have been trying to read about the energetics of observed supernovae for some time. And while the observed core-collapse supernovae have many scientific papers about them trying to estimate the energy released in different evemts like this one, I couldn't find similar reports for Type Ia SNe telling how much energy was actually released. All I could find about energy estimates for Type Ia SNe were different model of detonation and they are very close in the numbers they compute. So, is this lack of Type Ia SNe energetics because they are essentially the same and only one model can be applied to all of them ? I know Type Ia SN is the result of a thermonuclear runaway in a WD with a Chandrasekhar mass limit, so they should actually produce the same amount of kinetic energy for the ejecta. So is it true that all Type Ia supernovae observed share have similar released energy ? PS : I am concerned about kinetic energy more than optical and light curves, so the mass of the Ni produced and the luminosity is not important for me here.
I was wondering if there has been any category theoretic advancements in the study of the Riemann Hypothesis and the theory surrounding it? This question is meant in the same vein as these questions, but specifically for category theory. These other two questions do not have any answers related specifically to category theory. EDIT: Just to be clear, and because Zhen Lin brought up a good point about category theory being mostly a language for mathematics: I understand that category theory is a language like thing, but it can still be useful in mathematics. I had in mind maybe an advancement in one of the fields related to the RH, in which category theory plays an important or central role. Or perhaps a category theoretic equivalent statement or something similar.
One of my friend who stopped studying maths in high school told me once You study maths, can you help me fill my tax forms? In her mind, advancing in maths studies implied manipulating an increasing amount of numbers. The reality I faced was the contrary: I dropped numbers for some more abstract notions (i.e. letters and symbols). I wonder if a (putative) link between abstraction and use of numbers has been investigated. For instance, can we say that one area of mathematics is more abstract than another one just because it uses less numbers in its formulation? Or, is this particular domain of maths became more complex as it uses less numbers? One possible metric I think of would be the number of numbers per "mathematical" line. This question may not be within the scope of math.stackexchange, but I didn't find a more suitable site. Thanks!
I have a ... pdf file, which contains figures of plots such as the following: Now the second plot isn't too hard to draw on TikZ (I assume... I hope? I don't have any experience apart from drawing circuits!), but it's figures like the first picture that I'm more worried about. I want to re-draw them in code (like in TikZ or any package really) so that they appear in higher quality than if I were to just take a screenshot and post that in my LaTeX doc. Are there any tools that can automatically convert images like these into code? It doesn't have to be perfect, I can tweak it as necessary, I would just like at least the basic code done so that I don't have to start new with every single one. Even examples found online don't really match up to something like the first picture, and I'd rather not go through mountains of examples/pdfs/how-tos to draw something relatively simple. So how can I tackle something like the first drawing in code easily, i.e. convert it to compilable code? Any help would be appreciated!
I'm reading a Mathematical Logic book (A course in mathematical logic, Bell.M ) and the author is saying that the symbols of a formal language don't have a well-defined shape, he's claiming that they are abstract entities. I think he is saying that even though symbols are usually defined by its shape, the symbols of a formal language have 'abstract' shapes. He goes on explaining that we couldn't possible be able to define an exact shape in a formal language because that wouldn't be reproduceble in all metalanguages studying the symbols of that objective language ( the formal language ). He proposes them, that when we are studying a formal language ( objective language ) by means of a meta-language, and we want to reference the objects of the formal language ( its symbols ), we use as name, metalinguistic symbols. By doing this, we don't have to worry with the "shape" of the symbols in the objective languaeg when we are changing the meta-language that is studying the formal language, because the shape is not well-defined, they are allowed to vary with the meta-language. All in all, i think he is claiming that the symbols, lexicon or alphabet of a formal language, and hence the syntax is independent of its visual representation. I'm curious if this approach is worth to make and also if people are worried to make such distinction ( or is it only him ) ? Also, i would like to be corrected if i misunderstood the point.
The thought experiment goes like this: Say there is some circuit which turns a lamp on/off with just a flick of a switch. Say its off; you flick it, it turns on; flick it again it turns off, and so on. So say you are conducting the experiment for two minutes. When the remaining time halves, you flick the switch; and when that remaining time halves, you flick again...This process goes on infinitely, until two minutes is reached. Mathematics says that the sum of all those remaining half-times will eventually tend to two minutes. And the outcome i.e. the final state is always unpredictable. We can't really know if its on/off. Lets not concern about the final state. What would we actually observe towards the end, few micro seconds towards the two minute mark? Wouldn't the lamp appear turned on? What would happen if the time between two flicks tend to zero?
Imagine the following gedankenexperiment. Observer Alice is right here on Earth. Observer Bob is at say Alpha Centauri. A pair of maximally entangled qubits is formed with one qubit handed over to Observer Alice and the other sealed in a box on Pluto shielded from decoherence. It takes a few years for any signal to reach Observer Bob. Observer Alice measures her qubit and "collapses" it. To her, the pair of qubits is no longer entangled. However, for a few years, will Observer Bob think there is an entanglement? We have to be careful here. Once the qubit on Earth has been measured by Earthlings, the entanglement is "shared". By the well known monogamy of entanglement theorem, any correlation between both qubits by themselves will have become classical. However, Observer Bob, who has a very good working knowledge of quantum mechanics and relativity, knows that for a few hours, until light signals can reach Pluto, the system consisting of an expanding bubble around Earth and the Pluto qubit are in an entangled state. Alice, who lives inside this bubble, will beg to differ. Is quantum entanglement an objective or subjective property? Closely related to Wigner's friend and intersubjectivity in quantum mechanics and Given entanglement, why is it permissible to consider the quantum state of subsystems?.
Many dictionaries use a semicolon in a meaning for a word. For instance for the word impertinent I have seen: "outside the bounds of proper speech or behaviour; impudent; insolent; saucy" Then there is a synonym explanation of connotations for impertinent, impudent, insolent, and saucy. My question is: Does the semicolon introduce synonyms always? Does it mean that the word following a semicolon SHARES the meaning of the main entry word you are looking up; that is, the sense preceding the first semicolon in the meaning? I know that insolent cannot be substituted for impertinent, but maybe impertinent can be substituted for insolent with a loss of connotation. Just what the heck are these guys who write dictionaries trying to convey with the semicolon in the meaning of a word?
A question that has been bugging me for quite a while was raised by some communication between my employer and a partner organisation based in Dubai. It turned out that more than once, it's been noticed that this other party tend to use a particular tone of address in letters and emails. Whereas they will address male members of staff as 'Mr Bloggs' - which is quite acceptable and polite, even somewhat deferential given that it's quite uncommon and most other third parties tend to address you by first name after it's been quoted at least once in the exchange - they rigorously insist on referring to female colleagues as Miss Helen, and so on. That is, declining to use the individual's (known) surname, and presuming unless corrected that she is unmarried. Is this due to some antiquated perception of propriety in English correspondence, or is it a custom originating from the culture of the people involved? I would lean toward guessing the latter; since in parts of the Middle East having women in the workplace is less common and perhaps one might presume that a female employee is unmarried, unless it is determined otherwise. Is it thought by the demographic that we are talking to that using the maiden name of a woman known in a professional capacity is in some way vulgar?
I'm reading Yelizaveta Bam of Daniil Kharms (tr. Neil Cornwell) and stumbled upon the following dialogue: Ivan I.: But who then lights the lamp? Pyotr N.: No one, it burns by itself. Ivan I.:But that surely cannot be! Pyotr N.: Empty, stupid words! There is an infinite movement, the breathing of the lighter elements, planetary motion, the earth's rotation, the crazed alternation of day and night, the combination of remote nature, the anger and strength of remote nature, anger and strength of untamed beasts and the laws of light and wave. (I emulated the formatting used in the book) What does "the breathing of the lighter elements" mean here (or in general)? Since it is supposed to be an "infinite movement" I cannot relate it to the breathing of a living thing.
First of all: I was not able to compile a MWE, since the error seems to be connected to one of my documents, all of which are classified. I'm experiencing (for the first time) the following error: When opening a file in Acrobat Reader and then trying to print, I receive the errors The document could not be printed There were no pages selected to print My file is structured as follows: A beamer-file created in LuaLatex In the beamer-file, several other PDFs are included. Either created by AutoCAD or - and this seems to be the problem - by Latex (pdflatex). Some of the other PDF-files are included inside a tikz-environment (if that matters). All PDF pages are included as images using the graphics-package. By trying to include different PDFs and varying the amount of PDFs I discovered that the problem seems to be that different pages are included in different tikz-environments (it could be a completely different reason as well, this is just a feeling). I've created several other presentations using beamer all of which included multiple PDFs - but those PDFs were NOT Latex-created files. These other presentations work (and print) like a charm. Using a different PDF viewer solves the problem. However, as the created presentation will be sent off to customers, using a different PDF viewer is no valid solution. Also, the problem seems to be connected to some printers. E.g. using CutePDF causes the error, while (sometimes) using the network HP printer works.
I am looking for a method to save the lecture materials, and examples without hand copying from the boards during the lectures. Unfortunately some courses don't have the material available, and sometimes you want to copy a specific example. EDIT: The reason I would like to avoid copying by hand is that it is sometimes very distracting, especially when the example is complex. I would like to focus on the material itself and devote less time and effort to handwriting it. So far I thought of using a tablet with an application such as Camscanner to take photos of the board during the lectures. However sometimes I would want to add a hand note or an notation on the photo itself using a stylus pen (or similar). UPDATE: Camscanner will auto recognize the board boundaries for you and fix the perspective. Also once you took one photo you automatically add subsequent photos to the same document, i.e. same lecture. Very handful feature is that you can add hand notes on the image right after taking it, making notations easy. Any advice on an effective method or an application designed for that?
I was writing a market research report the other day and listed the challenges my company faced in the market in question, then I created a new section header for the... uhh... easy bits? That's when I realized I could think of no reasonable antonym for challenge in the noun form. I can certainly describe it -- characteristics of the market that will be of benefit to our entry "Advantages" is close to the mark but doesn't quite capture the idea because I feel that is in reference to our company, rather than in reference to the market itself. To give an example: Challenges > customer purchasing power is low > public perception of our manufacturing location is negative (Easy Bits / Cakewalks / Happy Things / etc.) > no competitive product on the market > strong transportation network with low logistical costs "Incentives" also seems close, but not quite there. Any ideas?
When speaking with my mother a couple of days ago, I read to her a message I was sending to my cousin on her behalf ending with: "... the birthday of your youngest." [implying her child] She immediately leapt on this and said that as my cousin only had two children, the use of the superlative was not permitted and the comparative must be used instead: "... the birthday of your younger child." She was adamant that this was a solid grammatical rule that she was taught throughout her education. As a younger Briton, I have relatively little formal grammatical education to older people who were better taught in this regard, so I usually defer to her on grammatical rule knowledge. Is she right? Are superlatives not permitted when the domain of the object is only two? To me it seems bizarre. The minimum or maximum of any set does not only exist when there are different minima and maxima, or indeed something which is neither.
English or any other language could be written or spoken in both the forms, either the user could use simple words or he could use some technical words, my question regarding English is which has more impact on listener, Simplicity in language? or Complexity by using technical words? and is it dependent of whether you are speaking or writing? Simplicity, i.e, using simple words in your language can be effective as it helps the listener understand you better. The brain of listener can easily understand what you meant to say, whereas Complexity brings elegance. A speech or text with some technical words used in it looks more promising and can express much more than the same text written in a simple language. So ultimately, which is better? PS : By Complexity, I didn't meant to say English which could not be understood, I just meant the use of more complicated and technical words in the language.
Unlike the use of "no problem" as an alternative to "you're welcome" or "my pleasure," neither of which bothers me much in common speech, its use as a reply to an instruction or directive to put right what the respondent has done wrong, particularly if at great expense or at substantial loss of available time, tests my patience and my temper. To my Boomer-generation ear, it says the respondent somehow feels that s/he is doing me a favor by setting things right rather than accepting responsibility for them, and somehow cannot see that a problem truly is involved. Is this a generational shift that I should get used to, or is the use of "no problem" in this context an erroneous use of this expression? (For now, at least.)
Here is a sentence from Chapter Seventeen of Huckleberry Finn. The sentence appears in a grammar worksheet: When I got to the three log doorsteps I heard them unlocking and unbarring and unbolting. My English teacher stated that "them" was an indirect object, and unlocking and unbolting was a direct object, as that is what was being directly heard. She states that indirect objects can answer the questions "by whom", referring to the direct object. (The doing could be done by the indirect object.) This doesn't really make sense to me. My first impression was that them was the direct object and the participles unlocking and unbolting were modifying them. So, can an indirect object in a sense do the action of a gerund direct object? Any help is welcome!
I've always been able to manipulate equations found in school homework easily. But when tackling more challenging questions from puzzle books - where I might need three quarters of a page to manipulate the equation into the ideal form - I find myself easily making mistakes. The obvious solution is more practice. But I can't find a suitable landfill of questions where the focus is on manipulating tediously long/complicated algebraic equations instead of practicing some kind of technique or problem. Has anyone had the same problem as me and found a felicitous way to overcome it? (Other than the obvious advice to be more careful, which you have to sacrifice speed for unless you've already had lots of practice) P.S. I'm not sure if this question belongs here; if it does not, I'll be glad to remove it.
I am currently an undergraduate and thinking about applying to graduate school for math. The problem is that I don't know what field I want to go. Taking graduate classes even more confuse me because the more I learn the less I know what specifically I want to do. My question is to where to find an information about different fields of mathematics? Maybe you can recommend me some good journals about math with overview of top areas of math or popular fields. I already spoke with my professors, asked graduate students about their history but I think that my knowledge about math in a broad sense grows slower than I want it. Maybe there is some good website with people chatting about different fields of research? What about conferences: is there a conference available for undergrad about top-trands in mathematics? All sources and all answers are welcome. I am mostly interested in pure math, but I also like applied math.
I have searched for some time for the "insider scoop" on how academics operate when it comes to mathematical research (theoretical physics research would also be interesting, but mostly interested about math research).I read "Letters to a young mathematician" which was a nice book but didn't talk much about the research process. If I google "Research process", or "How is research done", I mainly get recommendations of steps of how to do independent research. These step include brainstorming, choosing a research subject and looking through background information and articles. But how are these done in an academic setting and in a group setting? I understand usually while doing a PhD you would have an advisor which would help you with these things but you would mostly do them independently. But I mean people who are employed as mathematics professors at a university, how do they go about it? Do they do just this independent process? Do they cooperate together on the same research? Mostly what is interesting to me is how a group of people can research something together, and if this is even attempted.
TikZ provides the two keys execute at end picture={<code>} and execute at end scope={<code>} which can be used to execute any code at the end of the picture and of the current scope, respectively. I now like to execute some code at the end of the picture if a TikZ key defined by me is used outside a scope environment, i.e. in the optional argument of tikzpicture or at the end of the scope if it is used inside the scope, i.e. in its optional argument. I also like to access the bounding box of that area, i.e. the complete one or only the one of the scope, respectively. Is there am easy way to do this? Cascaded scopes should also be supported. I don't see a possibility to detect if I'm inside a scope or not. In theory the whole tikzpicture is a scope by itself and execute at end scope seems to work but the manual explicitly states it should only be used in the optional argument of a scope environment. I know about 'local bounding box' but then I would have to use it for every scope with a different name to avoid collisions.
I'm trying to submit a journal paper through ScholarOne Manuscript (an outdated automatic build system some scientific journals use). The issue is that I'm using biblatex. I tried with both backends, biber and bibtex, and I couldn't get it through. Has any of you managed to make a successful submission to ScholarOne with biblatex? Update: They use some build tool which forcefully calls bibtex. After many unsuccessful attempts to make it work with biblatex (also with backend=bibtex), I decided to convert everything to bibtex. The main issue is their referencing style: a mix of author-numeric(superscript) which I was not able to replicate easily without biblatex and I had to hardcode some citations: If you have a better idea regarding the citation style let me know although maybe I should open a new question for that.
Frequently I hear Americans (admittedly mainly in TV/movies) say "personal" and "regular" in the following contexts: "Don't take it personal." "I like that he treats me regular." Both of these are horribly incorrect to my British ear - I have never heard either here, it would be "personally" and "regularly", ignoring the fact that the second sentence is slightly awkward anyway (we would probably say "like a regular person"). My question is, do Americans 'know' this is incorrect, i.e. would John hear Jane speaking in this manner and think "her English isn't great" or whatever, or would it sound perfectly normal - is this an accepted use, that all Americans would use? I could easily believe it would be the latter, since 'momentarily' for example has a totally different meaning in AE. ('in a moment for undisclosed amount of time' vs. 'for a moment at an disclosed time').
I think I kind of understand this process but I would like someone to explain it more completely. For those who aren't aware here is the scenario I'm talking about: As terrain maintenance at my local ski slope we often use salt to firm the snow around jumps on warm slushy days. Throwing down a even layer of salt causes the snow to become firm and icy on its top layer (thus causing jumps to hold up better during heavy use). My best guess to this phenomena is that the latent heat of vaporization in the melting of some of the snow causes the snow below to become colder. As the snow on top melts it sinks down leaving an icy layer on top. Am I on the right track? or is something else going on?
I am a native German speaker and in German it is considered very bad style to use a word more than once in a sentence or even in close proximity. So you usually have a big list of synonyms in your head and you always cycle though these words while writing or even change complete sentences so you will not have to use the same words. I always automatically assumed that this is also the case in English. Now someone told me that this is actually nothing you have to be concerned about. (This sentence is actually a good example for this. I could have written: "Now someone told me that this is actually not the case in English." but I already used "the case in English" in the sentence before that and such repetitions are considered to be extremely clumsy writing in German.) Could someone please comment on this?