darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I am writing tourist information for a city that has areas known for similar shops (fabric, jewelry, musical instruments), similar services (spas, funeral, automotive), and similar industries (textile, software, manufacturing). I am currently referring to all of these areas as districts (e.g. the fabric district, the funeral district, the manufacturing district). Unfortunately, this usage could potentially cause confusion because this city also has a number of governmental districts (similar to "boroughs" in NYC). Also, there is some ambiguity between places where things are made and where they are sold. For example, the fabric district could be easily confused with the textile district. Two questions: Is there a better general term than districts for areas that known for similar things? Are there better specific terms in the case that those areas are known for stores, services, or industries?
I have this combinatorial assignment problem: K candidates apply for a job. There are R referees available to review their resumes and make a recommendation. Suppose that we would like M referees to review each candidate (M < R). How would you assign candidates to referees (or, conversely, referees to candidates)? There are two important cases: (a) K > (R choose M) and (b) K < (R chooses M). Case (a) actually reduces to case (b), so we only have to consider case (b). Of course, there are some constraints that make the assignment a bit challenging. We would like to have an even distribution of the number of candidates reviewed by each referee. We would also like to have some randomness or "mixing" in the assignment such that it is probable for any candidate to be assigned to any M-plet of referees. Is this an instance of a well known problem in combinatorics? Any hints or references to algorithms is appreciated.
Quite a few times now, a waiter or shop assistant has asked me: Will that be fine? I've noticed that I've only ever heard Indian English speakers use this turn of phrase. To my (British) ear, it sounds unidiomatic: I would always ask Will that be OK? expecting the answer Yes, that's fine. I'm intrigued to know what's going on here. Am I right in my assumption, from my own experience, that this is common in Indian English but not British English or (I think) American English? I've been trying to analyse it to work out why there would be a difference, and I'm wondering whether it's something to do with stereotypical British reserve. The British question/answer would go something like this: Q: Will that be OK? [Subtext: of course, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that my poor efforts could ever be positively fine: mere acceptability is all a worm such as I can hope for.] A: Yes, that's fine. [Subtext: I wouldn't want to be so rude as to confirm his suspicion that it's merely acceptable. I'd better make it clear that his efforts are unrelentingly fantastic.] This seems a plausible enough reconstruction to explain why Brits like me are so unassuming, but it wouldn't really explain why Will that be fine? isn't also idiomatic in American English. Is this prevalent only in Indian English? If so, can anyone explain why?
Like many programming books, there are mathematics books which do not provide exercises. Although similar in theory, how can I come up with exercises that will help illuminate a subject? The difference here is that when I pick up a programming book, I generally have an application in mind for whatever subject it is. This is not necessarily true when I pick up a mathematics book because I am not sure what type of questions I should ask. For example, when I first saw the definition of a measure space, I was not sure what kind of questions I should ask myself so that I can get more intuition about the subject. It was not until I saw multiple examples and solved many exercises that I learned what sort of questions were investigated in the book I read. Gaining such a skill where I could take a definition and extrapolate meaning is something I strongly desire. Is this sort of skill something that everyone learns as they gain more mathematical maturity, in a natural fashion, or is this something that has to be sought out?
What does the word cousin mean when used as a verb? By context I take it to mean that someone is putting someone else on or being difficult with someone else. For example, in The Dark Tower (Stephen King) series Wizard and Glass, a character, Eddie, is pressuring another character, Roland, to tell a story of his youth and of the troubling things that happened to him. Roland has been reluctant to do this until now. When Eddie reminds him of his promise to tell them, he responds thusly: "Would you think that I was cousining", he said, "if I asked for one more day to think of these things?" In other examples I have taken it to mean lying or being decietful. Spoilers below: Later in Wolves of the Calla, Eddie shoots the "eyes" of a robot named Andy, effectively blinding him. Andy beings frantically yelling for help, interspersed with "You cousining bastard!". Eddie previously had lied and tricked Andy into entering a confined space where he would be easier to deal with. Regardless of instances, the word appears to have a pretty negative connotation of falsity or deceit. I would really like to know a more accepted definition, although I suspect that this use of the word is wholly Stephen Kings doing.
I have a general question when it comes to deciding if an infinite series is convergent or divergent. The tests im familiar with are ; Ratio test, Direct comparison test, Limit comparison test, Root test and the Integral test. My question is if there is any way to tell what test is appropriate to start with just by looking at the series. At the moment I usually follow my own pattern and systematically try different tests. What I do is: Divergence test to see if the series is divergent. If its unsuccessful Ratio test, if unsuccessful Limit comparison test etc Which has been working fine, my concern is that it may be very time consuming if the first tests are unsuccessful, and might not be very efficient during exams. So basically: Is there a way to determine what tests are appropriate by just looking at the series? ( I have found nothing like this in my textbook, all the examples simply jump straight into the "correct" test).
I recently read an article in the NY Times called A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox. I really liked the article, but reading one quote immediately made me think of asking Physics.SE a question: From the material in the smoke and flames of a burning book, for example, one could figure out whether it was the Bible or the Kama Sutra; the same should be true of the fizz and pop of black holes, these physicists argued. So, Physics.SE, theoretically, how would you figure out what book was burned from the smoke and flames? I do not intend for this to be a silly question. If the idea of "information loss" inside of a black hole is so difficult for some physicists to come to terms with, I figure those same physicists should have a perfectly good answer to my question.
To me (an American), "what to study in college" sounds acceptable. Meanwhile, "what to study in university" sounds wrong. This suggests that these words have different grammatical attributes. This is shown somewhat in the example sentences on m-w.com: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/university I applied to several public universities. He lives near the university. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/college She teaches art at a local college. He graduated from one of the country's best colleges. She attended a business college. He attended college for several years, but didn't graduate. She dropped out of college. I went to Mount Holyoke College. When I was a junior in college, I spent a semester in Spain. the Edinburgh College of Art the London College of Fashion She is attending fashion college. Replacing the non-proper noun 'college' examples with 'university' doesn't sound right in many cases. He attended university for several years, but didn't graduate. She dropped out of university. When I was a junior in university, I spent a semester in Spain. Placing an article in front of 'university' does make it sound better. He attended a university for several years, but didn't graduate. She dropped out of the university. Meaning aside, what is the difference between 'college' and 'university' that suggest a different sentence structure to make it sound "better". While, Difference between "college" and "university" looks at the difference between the meanings, the question doesn't ask nor do the answers address the perceived grammatical difference.
The answer to the question "Could it be that Goldbach conjecture is undecidable?" claims that it is possible for something such as the Goldbach conjecture to be undecidable, meaning that assuming that it is true and assuming that it is false would both lead to no contradiction. But if it is undecidable, then, if we assume that it is false, it would mean that exists an even number that cannot be written as the sum of two primes. If a natural number exists, then it can be written down using a finite number of digits (any natural number is definable). This means that that number exists whether or not the conjecture is true, so if we assumed that it was true, there would be a contradiction, so it therefore can't be undecidable. What is the flaw in what I just said?
Because of English's lack of a gender neutral third person singular possessive pronoun, whenever the need for such a referent presents itself in the course of writing, we seem to be left with alternatives that are either cumbersome or otherwise awkward. There is the informal gender neutral "himself", and the informal singular "themself", and of course there is the more formal "himself or herself" which is both grammatically and politically correct but has the disadvantage of being incredibly annoying to write very quickly. Are there any other ways to truncate this expression, particularly (but not limited to) ways that stay within the bounds of standard correct English usage and grammar? For example, I thought of shortening it to "his or herself", but upon second thought this feels akin to what mathematicians would call can abuse of notation.
When calculating the ideal class group of a number field, it is common to start with the Minkowski bound, followed by decomposing finitely many prime ideals of norm less than that bound, and finding relations between these primes. Is there a way of avoiding the use of Minkowski bound in the computation of the ideal class groups? For example, could we use some exact-sequence (say) to show some isomorphism of the ideal class group with some other familiar group? Or maybe the Artin reciprocity isomorphism can aid us in this direction? Or even, per chance we can avail of some suitable resolutions for the computation of some cohomology groups? As to why one wants to avoid the use of Minkowski bound at all, I just think that the idea of this bound is quite analytical, and there might be a way of algebraically calculating the ideal class group. I googled and searched this site, but didn't find anything useful. The site I found that talks about the computation of the ideal class groups, either views the Minkowski bound as a fundamental ingredient of its arguments, or uses the class number formula for imaginary quadratic fields, which I would like to avoid as well. Any hints, references, or ideas are welcomed, thanks in advance. P.S. This it not to say that I want to avoid all results of the geometry or analysis, just that I want to know if there are any results in this direction.
This is a data sufficiency question - Q - How is A related to B? Statement I. B is the only son of D who is the daughter of A's father. Statement II. B is the father of C and is the only son of A's mother. A - I. If statement I alone is sufficient to answer the question. II If statement II alone is sufficient to answer the question. III If the data either in statement I or statement II alone is sufficient to answer the question. IV If both the statement together is not sufficient to answer the question. V If both the statement together is necessary to answer the question. MY ATTEMPT I think the answer will be Option I. From statement I, I got A is the uncle of B From statement II, I got A is the sister or the brother of B But I am not sure if I am right. Please help me solve this question.
I have a question related to this: Projective modules I'm trying to understand the "philosophy" of the statement, because it seems too similar to the statement "a module is free iff every element can be written uniquely as a finite linear combination of elements of a basis". Is this "projective basis" property saying this: a module P is projective iff every element in P can be written as a finite linear combination of some elements of P? We lose uniqueness in the expression as a sum: in the elements of P, in the elements of R, and in the number of terms (so the concept of "rank" wouldn't make sense). Is this all, or am I misunderstanding the statement? Any other intuition related to that property is also appreciated.
I learnt about an experiment to show that acceleration is proportional to force. It was done by placing a trolley (like a toy car) on a smooth track. At the end of the smooth horizontal track was a pulley connected to the trolley by a string which hung masses over the edge of the table. So the trolley experienced acceleration due to the weight from the masses. My problem is in what my textbook says to do next. They say you have to take a mass being hung over the edge, which results in less force applied to the trolley. But then they tell you to put the mass onto the trolley, to ensure constant mass in the system. The problem is in placing the mass onto the trolley. Surely the trolley's mass should stay constant throughout, since that is what we are measuring the acceleration, and not the system as a whole? I hope you can explain this to me, or if my book is incorrect. I'll expand on the experiment if you find my description confusing.
Once again, a problem encountered while marking German pupils' exams. We teach them the following rules: A present participle can be used to shorten an active relative clause: The boy who was driving the car didn't stop = The boy driving the red car didn't stop A past participle can be used to shorten a passive relative clause: Strawberries which are grown in California are delicious = Strawberries grown in California are delicious. While marking, I encountered several problems. For example, why does this not work: The girl who has black hair is in the corner NOT The girl having black hair is in the corner or That's the man who is happy to be here NOT That's the man being happy to be here Does this all have to do with: the verbs have and be? (But "The girl, being happy, phoned her friend") the continuous and simple forms? (But "We help people who live in ghettos = we help people living in ghettos") the tenses? Or what? I'm totally stumped by this problem and do not know how to explain the pupils' mistakes to them. The problem seems to occur mostly with the use of the present participle. Who can help with some explanations or even better, specific rules!
I recently stumbled upon an interesting quirk regarding words that are both nouns and verbs. They seem to all follow the same stress pattern. Here are a few examples: NOUNS I have a really long address. There is a huge contrast between winter and spring. Not a single object is blue. I'm not very good at creating produce. VERBS Make sure you address him properly. I try to contrast the two twins in my head. He will object to any change you propose. Produce the paper right this instant! Why do the nouns have stresses on the first syllable and the verbs have stresses on the last syllable? Is there a good reason for this, or is it just coincidence? These are just the examples I thought of - I'm sure there are more. There are also some "noun/verb"s that have the same stress: That was a huge surprise! Next time I'll surprise you! But I've yet to find a counterexample - one where the noun has an ending stress and the verb has a starting stress.
Measurement of a quantum observable (in an appropriate, old-fashioned sense) necessarily involves coupling to a system with a macroscopically large number of degrees of freedom. Entanglement with this "apparatus" takes care of the decoherence. It is often said (I can provide references upon request) that the remaining problem is the one of "selection", and this is the point where one invariably invokes something philosophically radical, like many-worlds interpretation. In the above (pretty standard) context, I am trying to make sense of the following observation. Looking at the measuring system from a statistical mechanics point of view, it seems that triggering a particular macroscopic outcome requires spontaneous symmetry breaking via a (thermodynamically) irreversible transition of the "apparatus" from a metastable to a higher entropy final state. My attitude is that "statistical mechanics point of view" is not far from "decoherent large quantum system". So, the question is: Is it fair to say that statistical irreversibility ("the second law") and quantum measurement irreversibility (the "wave-function collapse") are necessarily linked? Can this link be made more concrete (e.g., traced in details in a particular model)? Can you give references to approaches to the measurement problem that explore this connection?
I am studying for the AP BC Calculus Exam and I know about the free response questions from AP Central, and the Multiple Choice Collection. I was wondering if anyone here knew of where to obtain more problems? At least a collection of problems similar to those that appear on the BC Exam. I realize this is not a question about an actual math question, but I don't feel very confident in my math ability so I want more problems to solve. Ps. I don't have alot of cash, so I can't afford to buy barron's books or any test prep books. The local libaray doesn't have any -someone check the book out but never returned it, and the book store doesn't like it when you just sit there working out problems and you don't buy the book.
From what I understand, in simple terms, The definition of iteration : The act of repeating a process The definition of recursion : The act of repeating smaller process of the same problem It these definitions aren't too far fetched, it looks to me that a recursion is a type of iteration. But I am yet to find a reliable source to confirm it. So my question is, is recursion is a type of iteration or I am comparing apple and orange? The premise : In the process of learning computer programming, a book is introducing me to recursion. I understand the basics and I know how it works from a programmers perspective. But I don't understand why they aren't introducing recursion as a type of iteration. They are introducing iteration and recursion as two different concepts. Why so? (I've scoured through math.stackexchange and stackoverflow, but yet to find a clear explanation to my question.)
I don't want to re-invent the wheel here, and I know that there are a lot of good math libraries out there for all sorts of things; what I'm wondering is if there's one that generates its answers in LaTex? (Could be any sort of TeX; I'm not really familiar with which ones are used for what) Well, it could look like anything (just linear algebra, just calculus, just physics or chemistry, etc.) but it would be nice if it were an application with its own GUI that generates copy-and-paste LaTex code from different inputs and a whole set of operations at the user's disposal. It doesn't have to be that great, though. I wouldn't mind coding this myself, but before I embark, I'd like to see what my options are so that I know where to start.
I'm going to start self-studying General Relativity from Sean Caroll's Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity. I'd like to have a textbook on Differential Geometry/Calculus on Manifolds for me on the side. I do like mathematical rigor, and I'd like a textbook whose focus caters to my need. Having said that, I don't want a exchaustive mathematics textbook (although I'd appreciate one) that'll hinder me from going back to the physics in a timely manner. I looked for example at Lee's textbook but it seemed too advanced. I have done courses on Single and Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, Analysis I and II and Topology but I'm not sure what book would be the most useful for me given that I have a knack of seeing all results formally. P.S: I'm a student of physics with a mathematical leaning.
Four suspects were assembled in the director's office, having been accused of a devious crime: turning off the light switch during Mr. Buehler's business presentation. It was known that only one of the four turned off the switch. All four were friends, and the director's secretary overheard them plotting before they were brought into the director's office. They all agreed to tell the same number of false statements, although the secretary did not hear the agreed-upon number. Their statements are below. Who turned off the light switch? Joe: -Frank didn't do it. -I went to college with Felipe -I didn't do it Felipe: -I didnt do it -Joe didnt go to college with me -John didnt do it John: -We all agreed to tell one false statement -i didnt do it -Felipe did it Frank: -We all agreed to tell two false statements. -Felipe didnt do it - i didnt do it
I would like to know if there is any physical significance associated with the derivative of a quantity with respect to proper time or is it just a mathematical trick. Since proper time is measured in its "rest" frame of a moving particle, it seems to me that particle is not going through any dynamics and therefore time derivatives should be zero in the rest frame. I understand that we use derivatives with respect to proper time to keep things Lorentz invariant....but that sounds more like a mathematical requirement rather than something of physical significance. Example: what is the physical significance of four-velocity. I know four velocity is tangent to the worldline but I find it hard to remember through physical intuition. I always have to go through a book to find its definition. Kindly excuse my ignorance.
I am looking for a word that describes audio that does not contain words. For instance: John William's piece Duel of the Fates would be this, since they are just vocables for their musical effect, similar to the way any other instrument is used in that context. A recording of machine gun fire would be this, since there is no linguistic meaning. A song where someone is singing would not be this, because there are words with actual meaning. A book recording would not be this. Speaking in Tongues by the Talking Heads, and the main theme of Close Encounters of the Third Kind are sort of borderline, I'm really not sure which side they would fall on. Does anyone know of a word or phrase that would describe this category of sound?
I know that string theory is still under heavy development, and as such it still can't make predictions (or not that many predictions anyways). On the other hand, it is clear from the number of years this theory has been under development and from the large number of theoretical physicists studying it, that it is considered a good and viable candidate as a quantum gravity theory. So, what is the evidence that this is true? Why is it considered such a good candidate as the correct quantum gravity theory? Without wanting to sound inflammatory in the least, it has been under heavy development for a very long time and it's still not able to make predictions, for example, or still makes outlandish statements (like extra dimensions) that would require a high amount of experimental evidence to be accepted. So - if so many people believe it is the way to go, there have to be good reasons, right? What are they?