darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
Superdeterminism is one wild conjecture which is an alternative to the standard quantum mechanical interpretation and preserves local realism Superdeterminism seems to be too much of a stretch. If experimental results are pre decided it simply renders the experiments useless. Is there any alternative in the academia where something like minimal determinism is discussed? Like just the minimal amount of determinism needed to retain local realism. For eg: In the classic Bell's test, if the entangled electron pair generator knows the direction of measurement of spin beforehand for even one of the electrons while generating the entangled pair of electrons, hidden variable theory can violate Bell inequality. Instead of the entire system being superdeterministic, only one pair of entangled electron pair generator and electron spin detectors are determined.
I'm looking for a single word that means "to bring within reach"/"make possible" for a technology or promising development. For example Mobile phones _____ photography for the common person. "Facilitate"/"make accessible" isn't quite right - I want to convey a step change, a paradigm shift. In particular, I'm naming a business. I work in robotics. Robotics has long been touted as a way to give people mobility, automate the mundane, and facilitate humans focusing on what matters to them. My goal is to build tools for other companies to accelerate them and _____ the promises of robotics for humanity.
I work in STEM and a problem I often face with is the use of "by" or "through". Let me explain it with an example. I have a quantity named "variance" that is derived after a certain number of tests (called Monte Carlo simulations). So, I write it like the following: The performance of the estimator is evaluated by comparing its numerical variance with other estimators obtained by/through Monte Carlo simulations.
this was my first question here and I asked it before I knew anything about this site like the dup questions I want resources (books) for studying Euclidean geometry beyond the high school level. I have been searching for good books on this topic but haven't found any. Could you please provide me with recommendations or suggest good books for this subject to study it in more depth than high school geometry?
So, back in my school, our teacher was teaching structure of an atom. I had some doubts, like why do hot objects emit radiations and so many. I noticed that every question I had asked had an answer. If I added a why to it, thats another question. It mostly came to a conclusion that all atoms want to attain stability. My question is why atoms want to attain stability and can I relate it to entropy?
How is this construction correct? The drawing-room began to look empty: the baccarat was discontinued for lack of a banker; more than one person said goodnight of his own accord, and was suffered to depart without expostulation; and in the meanwhile Mr. Morris redoubled in agreeable attentions to those who stayed behind. (Robert Louis Stevenson) In my humble opinion, the correct sentence should be: ... banker; more than one person said goodnight of his own accord and was suffered to depart without expostulation; .... We are not supposed to use commas when a second verb (was) has the same subject as an earlier one (more than one person). Of course, my problem lies only in that part of the brief.
I am looking for a word for an environment where people feel choked. For example, the environment in medieval Europe (or in communist era) was far from free. One felt choked/strangulated. Is there is word to describe such an environment? For eg, for happiness, one could say An era/regime of happiness. What would that be for choked? Update: I was trying to say that the age of Enlightenment was a response to a 'choking kind of environment' where the church had too much control over people's lives.
Whenever there is contact between objects, there exists a normal force. If we apply force on an object, our hands are in contact with the block, so there will be a normal force on my hand and normal force on the block, so the net force acting on the block will be the applied force plus the normal force. Why don't we include the normal force acting between our hand and object?
I've seen a lot of proofs of the convergence properties for the Fourier series of continuous periodic functions that use the assumption that the function's derivative and second derivatives exist and are also continuous. I was wondering is the stipulation that the derivatives exist considered not that restrictive of an assumption because we can consider the Stone-Wierstrass polynomial approximation of the function instead which converges uniformly to any continuous function on an interval and does have continuous derivatives?
According to Transformation of the energy-momentum tensor under conformal transformations The schwartzian term in the transformation properties arises due to the stress tensor being defined as the normal ordered classical expression, where the normal ordering happens with respect to the given coordinate frame. However, the infinitesimal transformation properties of the stress tensor can also be derived in terms of conformal Ward identities. I think it is kind of magical, that apparently the derivation in terms of the path integral "knows" about the appropriate change in normal ordering under coordinate transformations and I wanted to know, why the path integral implements the right normal ordering procedure, without having somehow incorporated it explicitly?
I'm writing a book using the book document class and, for whatever reason, one of my chapters has its contents start on the next page rather than the current page. I have no idea why this is; I looked for manual page breaks or anything that might be causing an issue to no avail. Each chapter is broken up into a .tex file that inputs other sub-chapter .tex files. So, I'm not really sure what to post as far as a MWE since this issue plagues exactly one chapter. Is there some arbitrary setting or command that I accidentally enabled that does this? "Broken" chapter: Example of a "correct" chapter:
In The Symmetric Group the author, Bruce Sagan, uses the terms degree and dimension of a matrix representation synonymously to mean the number of columns of the matrices. However, I have also seen elsewhere that the degree has been defined as the number of columns in the matrices, whereas dimension refers to the dimension of the vector space on which the group acts. I guess the author can define the terms how he wants, but is there a convention for what these terms mean more precisely?
For an animation with TikZ and Asymptote (that I am somehow familiar with), its size is accumulative with the number of steps. I am mimicking animation for From Random Polygon to Ellipse, take a polygon with random vertices, find the mid-points of its sides, and use these to create a new polygon, replacing the original. Do this repeatedly and an ellipse will eventually form. See here for more explanation. In this situation, the number of steps/frames is large or extremely large, and only last step/frame is needed. Can we do it with TikZ or Asymptote? Do you have any other recommendation? PS: I can add a MWE with TikZ/Asymptote, but as said above, I think it is useless.
I am creating fill-in the blank notes for my class using the Censor package, a solution I found on this forum here. What I can't figure out is how to make the blanks for my students to fill in longer -- ie, I don't want text to be ____ but more like ____________ since most people don't have tiny, perfect handwriting. Is there a way to add a multiplier to the length of the blank or replace a character with, say, two or three underscores instead of one so that normal people can fit their handwriting in one of the blanks? If someone has a different, cleaner solution that would be great too; the post explains the gist of what I need to do.
I am searching for the title and author of a book once lent to me. I cannot recall much about it other than the color scheme used on the cover. The cover was black with orange lettering. Perhaps there was a gray strip at the very top. It looks somewhat like this cover. However, as I recall, the book had some depiction of a matrix on the front cover. The title had Matrix or Matrices in it. Perhaps Theory or Applications. If anyone knows what book I may be thinking of, a citation would be very appreciated.
Consider the above diagram. I am currently learning about standing waves in an open and closed tube. To me, it is trivial why at a closed end, there must be a node, as particles are not free to move around back and forth. However, to me an open end is not so trivial. Why must it be an antinode rather than some other part in the wave?
Could someone help me constructing such segment AB in Geogebra that would satisfy such properties: by moving the point A the segment moves as a solid body but does not rotate by moving the point B the segment changes its orientation and size the segment should be able to move like a solid body even if one of its edge points is attached to a line I have already tried to use vectors but got the result that don't satisfy those properties above.
I am wondering if an incident gamma could compton scatter from the delocalised pi-electrons in an aromatic compound (e.g. liquid scintillator). I understand that compton scattering is valid for free electrons, and is usually described in terms of the outer most atomic energy levels where incident photon energy >> binding energy. However, how about compton scattering from molecules, and particularly delocalised electrons in aromatics? Furthermore, if it is possible, would the scintillator be excited and scintillate after a pi electron is removed? Thanks!
The following are the formatting guidelines for citation call-outs and formatted bibliographic entries provided by the journal International Economic Review: Unfortunately, the journal does not provide a BibTeX bibliography style file that would implement these guidelines, and no template is avaibable in https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Bibtex_bibliography_styles. I was wondering whether there is an encyclopedia of bibliography styles that I could choose from. Or, how shall I customize it by myself?
basically the problem is the same as in a question i previously asked: Draw shaded region using tikz and pgfplots Now the problem is that the region i want to draw is more complicated, mainly because of the functions involved: This is what i want to obtain, but i don't know how to change the code in the answer in order to draw the graph showed in the image, also because tikz does not really get along with sqrt function. Does anyone know how to solve my problem?
There are many methods for diagonalizing matrices; probably the most widely used is the combination of household transformations and the QR algorithm. Is there any superior method for diagonalizing large, non-sparse real symmetric matrices? Superiority can be a bit muddy, so I define it as fast, numerically stable, does not require large amounts of extra memory, and lends itself to parallelization and vectorization. Crosspost: SciComp.SE
If a stationary charge is kept in front of current carrying wire , from charge's perspective the protons are at rest with it and electrons are moving , so shouldnt there be a lenght contraction in electrons and there density increase and stationary charge should feel a force , but it is seen that it doesnt?? please answer the question in stationary charge's frame of reference when electrons are flowing in the wire
It doesn't have to be a MacBook exactly, other switched power supply powered metal case devices are good enough, but MacBook is the most common. It must be AC powered; the effect disappears when unplugged. Your other hand (which doesn't slide on the surface) must not touch the surface; the effect disappears when touching the surface with the other hand. You must move your finger; the effect disappears when you stop. The same effect can be felt by sliding on someone else who touches such a device. It's definitely not a potential difference. I suppose it's mechanical resonance, but can't explain.
True or false question! Conduction is the slowest mode of heat transfer - true (given in internet) Now my question is, let's say you want to boil some water, in this case should not be the conduction mode be faster than convection? I mean within seconds, we can feel the heat energy if we touch that beaker, where we need some time to feel the same amount of heat energy from water. Kindly elaborate on this.
Let there be some air contained in a vessel whose walls are elastic. The vessel is closed and we impart some velocity to it. Please note that the gas inside the container is stationary w.r.t. the container. But the container, itself, is moving with some acceleration. The gas particles should press against the walls in a direction opposite to the direction of motion. My question is can we say whether the internal pressure created by the gas particles increase or decrease with increase in the acceleration of the vessel?
The electrons in the hydrogen molecule experience the same potential and are thus in the same state, so the Pauli exclusion forces them to have opposite spins. Since the protons are identical by symmetry, are these in the same state too? If they were, then the spins would be forced opposite and orthohydrogen would not exist. So in what way am I thinking about this wrong? Is it that the ground state for the protons is degenerate?
Aperiodic tilings for the plane are quite popular. I can't find any papers on aperiodic tilings on infinite surfaces like a cylinder. One reason might be that these are no longer called tiles but something else (a curved finite surface). Do references for this exist? Periodic tilings of cylinder can easily be accomplished with a machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knurling A lathe machine has parts that rotate and easily create a periodic pattern that has one tile type. Not sure if there exists a machine that would do it with multiple tile types. My end goal is to find a similar method to aperiodically tile a cylinder. At least one part of rotation would have to exhibit aperiodic behavior, but I leave that outside of the scope of this question.
If we have a set of sentences S in first order logic. We know that we can create a first order theory Th(S) from S, which is the "set S" union "the sentences which we can prove them from S" . Also as first order theory, this theory follow the rules (axioms and rules of inferences) of first order logic. Does it has sense to define the Th(S) as above but with an extra union with "axioms of first order logic" ? Also can i consider the Th(S) as formal system which has "intersection" with the formal system First Order Logic?
In Bell's Spaceship Paradox, are there any direct observations that the stationary observer can make that would justify the breaking of the string without taking into consideration as to what's taking place in the frames of the ships? In other words, can it observe any changes in the string's properties that would justify the break without having to switch or calculate in other frames? If the string is replaced by a bar that can stretch a bit before it breaks, in the rocket's frame it would appear that the stripes become broader before the bar breaks. What would the stationary observer observe?
Can the longest length of a regular icosahedron be equal to the longest width and the longest height? Since the icosahedron is regular, this would mean its faces would still have to remain as equilateral triangles. If this is not possible, are there any ratios between length, width, and height? As a follow up question, can we use edge lengths to determine the length, width, or height? Are there any possible equations?
Example: She ate one or more apples, and each apple of the one-or-more apples was either red or green. In the example, if "one or more apples" is the antecedent, should the reference back (i.e., "the one-or-more apples") be hyphenated? My thinking is that "one-or-more" in "the one-or-more apples" works as a compound adjective or "compound quantifier" when referring back to the antecedent of the example, and hyphenation of the compound adjective or quantifier improves readability. Readability is not an issue in the example, but repeated references back to such an antecedent with the hyphenation seem to be easier to read in longer forms of writing.
I understand "what (a) nerve!" means "how rude". I somehow always thought "what a nerve" is more common and was surprised at the exchange made in this question. Apparently American English speakers feel "what a nerve" is strange. My questions: Is it correct to think that the difference is regional? More specifically US/UK? If there are native speakers from other countries, how do you feel about "what a nerve"?
A vertex is defined as a 'meeting point of two lines that form an angle'. When I increment the circumference of a circle into infinitesimal small increments I get something like shown below in the picture. This infinitesimal small increment of the circumference can then be divided into left and right which is shown by the black arrows in the picture. My question is, if the part of the circumference is infinitesimal small, the left and right part of it would not be curved and therefor the above mentioned description of a vertex would be true.
I have heard of definitions along the line of saying that a transformation T of something with respect to a certain property p is symmetric if, after T is applied, p remains unchanged. Is there a way of refining this definition? How could you use this definition to show that fractals are symmetric? What are T and p? If something satisfies a recurrence relationship, is that a type of symmetry? ################################################## From the comments, I am getting the impression that there is no specific definition of mathematical symmetry. Fractals are frequently described as being highly symmetric. The idea is that you can uniformly contract or expand a fractal and lay it on top of itself.
Given a stochastic differential equation SDE the mathematical definitions are clear to me, i.e. we want to find a filtered probability space, a BM and a process which satisfy the SDE. However in the real world we are given a probability space and a BM on it (e.g. the uncertainty on the stock market). Why constructing these weak solutions which are purely mathematical objects would help?
When two black holes are merging, one of them can be ejected if it has less mass than the other black hole, so the gravitational waves emitted by both of them is unbalanced, and the more strong ones would "kick" the smaller black hole out of the merger, sometimes even kicking it out of the galaxy. This is known as gravitational recoil. Can this also happen with other objects like stars or planets so that they can get ejected to very high speeds? If not by the same mechanism, maybe through a similar one?
Newb here. When I look up how to create two columns, I get a bunch of tutorials that assume one text will run from the bottom of column A to the top of column B, like a newspaper article that spans two columns. That's not what I want to do. I want to put one text in the left column, a different text in the right column. Like two separate newspaper columns. When the text reaches the bottom of column A, instead of picking up at the top of column B, it should start at the top of column A on the next page.
This is not a hint-to-solve-exercise question, but just mathematical curiosity involving one my favorites branches of this beautiful science: group theory. Having done some research in databases like this one, I came across with some different ways to construct groups of a given order. Since I don't know about extensions, my knowledge is more limited but I have a question: how many "different" group/subgroup products are there? In the database I wrote, I found things like "central product", "wreath product" (apart from the typical direct or semidirect ones), etc, but, are these products the only constructions? Am I missing other types of products?
As I wrote in the question, what is thermodynamic equilibrium? From what I understand is a state where the thermal, chemical properties don't change with respect of the time and there is a mechanical equilibrium as well. But can this be true for example, in a body with a temperature field with gradients? I was reviewing this concept because thermodynamic equilibrium is critical in defining a reversible process and I want to understand it well.
I have a presentation with one of the slides titled Results: limited-data in-the-wild semantic segmentation What would be the correct way to capitalise this title? https://capitalizemytitle.com/style/APA/ recommends either Results: Limited-Data In-The-Wild Semantic Segmentation or Results: Limited-Data In-the-Wild Semantic Segmentation with the latter of the two being the one I originally used. However, this seems to be in conflict with the recommendations from this question, which say words like "in" or "the" should never be capitalised.
Imagine if a box tied on string is swirl around a rough surface. The centripetal force might be contributed by both tension and friction. Since the surface of the object is flat instead of spherical surface, it might not rotate along its motion (rolling like a tyre). So, what type of friction should we consider that contribute to centripetal force?Is it static friction or kinetic friction
I know that: At this time tomorrow, I will be playing cricket. is used since the so-called future continuous is used to talk about a continuous activity at a specific time in the future. Even present continuous is used to talk about a planned activity in the future. So my question is can we say this? At this time tomorrow, I am playing cricket. I am eagerly waiting for the scholars' or experts' comments on this.
I was looking at the modeling of ttW production (but the question is general) and came upon an off-shell corrections paper. As I am no expert on MC generators, I am not sure if these off-shell corrections can lead to different amounts of radiation compared to an on-shell sample. My intuition says that maybe a Sudakov factor contribution might shift slightly and because of the Pt shift of jets the PS might differ but I do not expect large differences in number of jets as I can't think of an off-shell channel diagram that would differ significantly in extra radiation. Is this the case or are there examples where one does see noticeable differences (only in the modeling/in data as well)?
The narrator in this video has a very clear native English accent. What caught my attention is near the end of the clip when he said: They spend so much time in the tree and they sleep while hanging upside down like a bat. Though I know that it's grammatically correct to compare a plural noun with a singular noun, such as: They are much slower than him. Or: They ran as slow as a turtle. However, I am still wondering how often (or rare) for native speakers to compare many "lemurs" with plural "bats" instead of a single "bat" in the first sentence, or at least isn't it abnormal to do so?
In an attempt to understands some basic concepts about manifolds and differential geometry I encountered a concept of a parallel transport. This perhaps may be very naive question, but could one consider an analogy to the parallel transport (as defined in this Wikipedia article) being a ball rolling on a flat table surface? If so, is then such an example also an example of holonomy or not?
Recently, I was attempting to describe the experience of traveling with strangers on one of those pedal trolleys which serve beer - how producing physical effort with others towards a shared goal inspires fraternity or camaraderie. I did some googling for inspire synonyms and a few searches along the lines of inspiring fraternity, but haven't been able to find the word I'm looking for. It would be a synonym of inspire, with this added connotation of specifically inspiring fraternity. Example sentence: Digging a ditch with another man ____ between the two of you. Any clever linguists know a single word to describe this?