darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I want to tell that something reminds/hint us of another thing. For example, in an application, a sorting method used in it has similarities to bubble sort but not completely the same. In this case, when reading about the sorting method used in the application reminds or hints me of, or brings to mind the idea of bubble sort. So, I tried to put this idea into a sentence this way: The sorting method used in the application reminisces bubble sort. But in this sentence, is the word reminisces used appropriately? So I thought of phrasing it the other way: The sorting method used in the application is a reminiscent of bubble sort. I seldom hear the word reminiscent being used in this context and it sounds weird when I use it this way. Is it correct? Since it also feels like a hint, I thought maybe I could use the word "allude": The sorting method used in the application alludes bubble sort. Here, again, alludes doesn't sound like a right word to use. What word or way of phrasing should I use to get this idea across clearly?
With the following definition: To lower in quality or character. Synonyms found: corrupt, pervert, subvert, demoralize, demoralise, debauch, debase, profane, vitiate, deprave, misdirect However all of those have a very "intentionally evil" connotation. I would say more along the lines of "messed up", but it needs to portray that it's somewhat intentional, just not with the evil slant. Intentionally done, but unintentionally wrong, is what I'm looking for. Perfect Example: My nick name on here is Aequitarum Custos, which is a "bastardized" Latin, it should have been Aequitatis Custos (the correct way to say what I wanted). I intentionally created my nick like that, but had no intention to make it wrong. Reason for desiring a synonym is due to the perceived obscenity of the word bastard by some people.
What is the formal definition of an event? According to Wikipedia, "an event is a point in spacetime (that is, a specific place and time) and the physical situation or occurrence associated with it." This definition seems too large because it includes even points where no identifiable process is happening. On the other hand, what about particle-fields interaction: a comet passing through the gravitation field of the Sun a collision between two particles where one particle is entering the field of another particle and then bouncing off in a parabolic worldline (deceleration & acceleration). In both cases a field is continuously acting on an object, thus the event itself seems to be somewhat continuous. Can someone provide a formal definition which is taking into account particle-fields interaction? Do continuous events exist? Edit: The Wikipedia definition (which also might be found in textbooks) is inacceptable for a particular reason: Events (such as a particle collision) have somewhat observer-independent character, i.e.all observers agree on the fact that an event happened, even if they disagree on the time & the simultaneity of the event. In contrast, we cannot say that observers agree on any "point in spacetime". => A sufficient answer would be a good reference for what @By Symmetry wrote.
There's an experiment demonstrating the properties of super-fluid Helium compared to normal fluid Helium, in which the Helium is put in a jar who's bottom is porous. The super-fluid can pass through the small capillaries, while the normal fluid can not. Another experiment uses a fine grained powder (implying the same holds for percolation through porous medium as wall as though the capillaries) The video of this experiment can be seen here My question is: Is the permeability threshold determined only by the viscosity of the fluid? Doesn't surface tension also play a role in determining whether the liquid will percolate? Or do they implicitly assume there's no difference in surface tension between the two phases? Mercury has similar viscosity as water, with a much higher surface tension - and it will not get absorbed in fine sand, while water will - isn't it because water wets the send, while mercury does not?
In some posts in this forum I've read that sign convention in optics is useful for making formula memorizing easier, and that we have to use sign convention again while applying the formulae to neutralize the effect of taking sign convention... I tried to use geometry and saw that indeed without sign convention we get two formulae for lens maker's formula and so on... so in that way sign convention is useful... But i could not derive the formula for linear magnification by geometry - without sign convention the derivation does not match the formula given in the text books (which says m must be negative for convex lens when image is real). Can somebody please explain how to get it, and if not why don't we get it? The Sign Convention used is: The direction of the incident ray is positive. Incident ray is always incident from the left side on the refracting surface. Perpendicular distance of an object is positive when measured upwards from principal axis. Distance is always taken FROM the pole of the refracting surface.
From Planetmath A meager or Baire first category set in a topological space is one which is a countable union of nowhere dense sets. A Baire second category set is one which contains a countable union of open and dense sets. From Wikipedia: A subset of a topological space X is called nowhere dense in X if the interior of its closure is empty of first category or meagre in X if it is a union of countably many nowhere dense subsets of second category or nonmeagre in X if it is not of first category in X I was wondering according to Wikipedia's definition, is any subset of a topological space either of first category or of second category? are the definitions for second category set in Planetmath and Wikipedia consistent with each other? Wikipedia says these definitions are used for "historical definition" of Baire space. I was wondering if they are archaic i.e. no longer in use? Thanks and regards!
This is the law of stable equilibrium, according to Hatsopoulos and Keenan: A system having specified allowed states and an upper bound in volume can reach from any given state one and only one stable state and leave no net effect on its environment. Consider the following system: two sealed containers of gas. Container A contains a weight on a raised platform. Container B contains a flywheel. A string-pulley system connects the flywheel to container A. Let our system be both containers combined. Here are two options to reach stable equilibrium We slide the weight in A off the platform; it crashes to the bottom, raising the temperature of A. Instead, we slide the weight onto the string's hook, such that, as the weight gently falls, the flywheel spins and raises the temperature of B. It seems we have reached two different stable states despite making no effect on the environment, contrary to the law. What am I missing here?
Is it correct to say: Would you like to start a cooperation (with us)? Or should it be: Would you like to cooperate (with us)? I feel like the first sentence is wrong, as it sounds to much like saying would you like to start a corporation (with us)? (with a dutch accent) but the second sentence suggests more aggressive style of asking for someone to cooperate with you. Maybe there is a better way to ask this question? edit I should also state I am referring to a international business venture / collaboration. Where for example we would like to sell electronics on our website from his/her company for a small commission or put your vacation house up for rent on our website for a small commission. You would eventually sign a contact to do this(of course). So what I'm asking is: is it correct to ask the above stated questions? or is there a better way? Note: It should not sound like you would want to 'hook up' with the person your talking to e.g. partnering relationship
Colon or semicolon when because is omitted from a sentence e.g., I am sorry I disturbed you (;) (:) (because) it looked like you were having a lot of fun there. Because explains and clarifies a preceding clause so would it be correct to use a colon preceding the explanatory clause if because is omitted? Alternatively, because can be replaced by for, which is a coordinating conjunction and would correctly be punctuated with a semicolon. I am sorry I disturbed you, for it looked like you were having a lot of fun there. I am sorry I disturbed you; it looked like you were having a lot of fun there. For is of course reasonably archaic but is useful sometimes for grammatical clarity. And if anyone wants to comment on the that omission and comma replacement, I'd be very happy. I am sorry (that)(,) I disturbed you because it looked like you were having a lot of fun there.
Im taking a class in graduate probability. My background is in engineering (very used to math in an applied sense). I am also taking an undergraduate class in real analysis along side (should have taken it before, but I couldn't) I have a couple of questions: We're spending time looking at measurable functions on measurable sets. The definition of a "measurable set" is one who lies in a sigma algebra. My conceptual understanding of a sigma algebra (I know the technical def: countable additivity, etc.) is the resolution with which we understand a certain space - the sets that can be measured - even more simply: the sets we can actually use. We say a sigma algebra is the "domain" of our measure. In other words, a (prob) measure can't measure just any old arbitrary set/sets of set. We define a sigma algebra to handle this, and say our measure operates over this sigma algebra. However, the power set is actually a sigma algebra (the largest one, according to our definition), and yet not every element of the power set is measurable? I'm having a little trouble reconciling my conceptual understanding of a sigma algebra (the behave good-measurable sets) with its actual def (which gives us the power set dilemma). How does the Borel Sigma Algebra fit into this conceptual understanding? How about non measurable sets? Is there a concept of the largest sigma algebra of only measurable sets, which is a subset of the power set?
The hyperreal number system adds infinities and infinitesimals, allowing Calculus to be done using these things instead of limits (sort of like when calculus was originally invented, but with rigor).This got me thinking, could this be done with topology to create hypertopology (an equivalent but perhaps more intuitive way of doing topology)? It should be able to translate, since hyperreals can be represented as ultrafilters of reals. Hypertopology would involve ultrafilters of the points of the topology presumably. To define the topology, I presume you would define when two points of the hypertopology are infinitesimally close. To convert a metric space into a topology, you would simply define two hypertopology points as close whenever their distance is infinitesimal (again, ultrafilters can be applied point wise.) Has this ever been studied? What axioms would hypertopology "closeness" need to follow to be equivalent to regular topology? Is there an axiomatic approach (not requiring the ultrafilters (the hyperreals have an axiomatic basis))?
Imagine a cat jumping off a roof onto a sledge on ice. Model this as simply as possible, e.g. no resistive forces, perfectly rigid cat, sledge and floor. Moreover, the cat and sledge move in a straight line. The cat will have a vertical component to its momentum when it lands, but the sledge will - more or less - move off horizontally. What happens to the vertical component of momentum? Should we consider the Earth as a third body in the collision, and conclude that the Earth moves away with an immersurably small velocity? When performing calculations, can we simply ignore the vertical component post-landing? In reality, roughly what factor of the vertical motion's kinetic energy goes into heat, sound, vibrations, etc? (I don't mean list them one-by-one, just what is "non-Earth moving"?)
I got confirmed from a graduate school starting from next year and I will major algebraic geometry. Until now, I have never thought that I study little things than others with my age. However, I heard that some of my colleagues already studied Hartshorne at least once and quite a few of them have read Rudin's RCA when they were undergaduates. It's kinda unbelievable to me, but it seems like if they really did study and understood, then they will write absolutely a better Ph.D thesis than mine. So I'm now very worrying myself. I want to know whether this situation is general. Is it recommenable to study graduate subjects as early as possible? Or are there people here who experienced the same thing too? Was that beneficial? Between "studying each thing deep and slow" and "skimming many subjects as fast as possible", which one is better?
While researching about lasers (it's my hobby), it suddenly hit me: there are lasers for every color of the visible spectrum, but there are no brown lasers. Brown isn't even on the rainbow. How is it possible that we can see it? Even stranger, brown as a color is produced with red and green, but when you mix red and green light, it makes yellow. Now this is where it gets VERY interesting: There are forbidden colors, colors that cannot be perceived by the human eye though they are a mix of perceivable colors. They are caused because the cones devoted to complimentary colors will cancel each other out. Red-green is one. Blue-yellow another. The highly interesting thing is, brown absorbs all other colors but reflects red and green. I don't think it's a coincidence that while brown is, for some unknown reason, not on the visible spectrum but still perceivable, it reflect out red and green, components of a forbidden color. I also don't think that it's a coincidence that magenta does not lie on the rainbow, is nevertheless perceivable, and that it reflects...blue-yellow?
I am already fluent in portuguese and english, and I can also read spanish well. I have to read a text which is in french, and I'm having some difficulties. Knowing that there are a lot of people out there in the field of mathematics that are able readers of several languages, I would like to get the opinions of more experient professionals about their own experiences with different languages and from which ones they get/got more benefits from. I intent to use these opinions as a guide to choose the next language I will learn how to read, if not everything, at least mathematical texts. My initial belief is that I will get the most beneficial experience by learning french and then german, but I'm not sure; I never had experience to acknowledge mathematical texts in more strange languages (although once I started trying to learn korean - gave up some weeks later for lack of time). Opinions?
In my notes I wrote that Rutherford's model of the atom could not explain spectral lines, because that is what my textbook says. I'm not really sure about the details of spectral lines though. I know that when electrons interact with photons of specific frequency, they transition between energy levels (ie they could increase and become excited). After they become excited, they 'de-excite'. This allows them to release a photon and jump back to a lower orbit after they release a photon. This photon has frequency that corresponds between the difference in transition. This frequency correlates to a particular colour. So how then does this colour produce spectral lines, and therefore balmer series? (is that the right word usage?). How does Bohr's model not explain spectral lines (does it not talk about electron transitions, electron orbits etc and thus cannot deduce further?). What current model explains this?
After working on my oral skills in English for a couple of years, I know more interested in learning written English, specially by reading. I have been reading a couple of books over the last months (Game of Thrones, the whole Sherlock Holmes, Lord of the Rings, some Stephen King...) and articles (the Guardian, the New York Times, the Atlantic, mostly). But although I've felt some improvements in my understanding, and learned lots of words, I'm still not enjoying reading English as much as I do enjoy reading French (which is my natural language), and I'm not even what you could call a literary (checking my other stackexchange affiliations would prove you that...). When reading English I just follow the plot, but I'm really totally insensitive in the style of writing, in the choice of words, ... I hardly realized that when reading a few pages of French the other day, it's even way easier to focus on what I read when it is French than English. Fellow who learned English as a second (or third, or more...) language, have already felt that? Have you been through that? How long did it take? Or is it just a never ending job in progress but I'll never reach the ease I have with French?
I know this might not be an easy question, I've already read the wikipedia page, and there is an interesting view: Therefore, the main difference between chaotic systems and complex systems is their history. Chaotic systems do not rely on their history as complex ones do. Chaotic behaviour pushes a system in equilibrium into chaotic order, which means, in other words, out of what we traditionally define as 'order'. On the other hand, complex systems evolve far from equilibrium at the edge of chaos. However, I want to know a little bit more of their differences and intersections. If I'm not (terribly) mistaken, according to how the development of chaotic systems started, the emphasis was put on deterministic systems (should that part be of dynamic systems?), but now, with complex systems, according to what I understood of what Prigogine said, the emphasis should be put in other types of systems more close to reality. So what can you guys tell me about these two?
Generally speaking, by the well-known BCS theory, the more carrier density( density of state at Fermi surface) leads to higher critical temperature. However, in many researches, people fond that the relation between critical temperature and carrier density is not simple. There is a superconducting dome in phase diagram, no matter what carriers are electrons or holes. There exist a critical carrier density which gives the maximum critical temperature. Why is there a superconducting dome? What reduces the critical temperature when carrier density is higher than the critical carrier density? What is the physical reason? By the way, I don't think it can be simply explained by inducing disorder or impurity when doping. It is usually happen in chemical doping. However, there are many electrostatic doping researching on this topic, and usually it would only induce high carrier density without impurity or disorder, but also show similar nature of superconducting dome.
Consider the sentence: While this assumption, on its own, is relatively innocuous, if implausible, in practice, it is supplemented by assumptions... The 'if' here really means something more like 'but perhaps also'. Another sentence: He appeared very happy, if not exuberant, at her arrival. 'if not' here means something like 'and perhaps even', as if the latter statement should be a more extreme version of the former. But it also feels like an exclusive disjunction. That is, it is one or maybe the other, but not both. On the other hand, 'if' by itself feels like both statements could be true. I can conjure up many examples where both 'if' and 'if not' violate my above descriptions and many more which just seem malformed and awkward but fit them, e.g., 'He seems happy, if not a little confused'. or 'The proof appeared correct, if sloppily constructed,'... Adding further confusion, if I make a small change to the previous example: 'The proof appeared correct, if a little sloppy, .., it feels correctly formed although the semantics or grammar have not changed substantially (although I could be wrong as I am thoroughly confused now). So my questions are: are there any concise descriptions of how to use 'if' and 'if not'? Does this grammar usage have a name? When are they interchangeable and when not? Thanks
I'm facing a difficulty about referring to previously mentioned words. It's something that bothers me a lot about the English language. Please consider Mathematicians can use these theorems to their advantage. versus Mathematicians can, to their advantage, use these theorems. Which is more correct? The first sounds more natural and most people would probably say it's correct. However, I would think that technically the first is wrong and the second is correct, even though the second is a bit more unnatural. Why? Because in the first, their is referring to the last thing mentioned, namely these theorems, which is absurd. In the second, their actually refers to the mathematicians, as it should. What do you think? If the first is (also) correct, my question is simply this: Since when can sentences be counted as being correct just because they happen to make sense from the context?
I was suggested to use the term bullet-proofed by a colleague. Someone else now pointed out that bullet-proofed might not even exist, because we can't build the past tense of an adjective. Part one of the question is: can to bullet-proof be a verb which describes "making something bullet-proof"? And in consequence bullet-proofed then means "having made something bullet-proof"? So far, that's just for me, learning about it. I actually have decided to replace the word by something else. The word is intended to be used like "a bullet-proofed solution", which is close to foolproof or stable or tested. However, I would not use foolproof as a term here, because it might sound offending in the business context it is used. Can you think of the correct term my colleague might have had in mind when suggesting bullet-proofed? Note that we're both non-native English speakers. Update: @skymninge hit the definition. The intended use is like "not subject to correction, alteration, or modification", so I am looking for a synonym of that.
I am not an expert on figure exports and, although I have been searching around quite a lot, I can't find the answer to my problem. During the writing of a journal article, I had the idea of using psfrag to replace text on my .eps figures generated with Matlab. That works fine, as long as the main text .tex file is compiled as a whole. The problems start when one tries to generate the figures separately (since almost all journals require the figures to be uploaded as separate files). I have been trying to find a way to compile each figure into an .eps file with the psfrag labels added, so that I can submit these files separately. Maybe my problem is ill-posed to begin with (for example, even if one manages to compile a single eps file with the psfrag substitutions, how can one control the relative sizes of figure and text?). If this is the case, I would appreciate if someone could provide a correct workflow for ending up with .eps figures whose text has the same font with the article. Note: the only solution that I have managed to find and seems to be what I want, is the fragmaster.pl script, which however I do not how to operate in windows.
I'm trying to fill out a survey that asks me about features that should or should not be included in a smartphone app. The actual questions are confidential, but it's in the style of a sentence like this: "You can control the temperature of the room you're in" followed by these options (of which you can choose one) Assuming I'd choose "I would like it" for the second row. Does that mean find it positive that the feature is not part of the app, or rather that if it's not a part, I'd like it to become one? Similar with the "expect" answer. Would I expect the feature not to be part of the app, or would I expect it to be and miss it if it's not a feature? I was sent the link by a "noreply@foo.bar" mail, so I don't know whom to ask. I'm passionate about the topic, though, and would like to answer this as precise as possible.