darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
When you ask search engines or dictionaries, they don't seem to recognise the word 'orthodontry' and all point to 'orthodontics' and 'orthodontia'. I suspect 'orthodontry' is a mash-up of either of those and 'dentistry'. However, there are many businesses that use the phrase in their advertising and online communications. It seems to specifically refer to the practice of orthodontics. Is this an example where the dictionaries are just behind the times and is 'orthodontry' just an example of a neologism on the rise - a new 'aluminum'? Or is there some good reason the word should really be avoided? Examples of sites using the phrase: https://orthodonticsinlondon.co.uk/blogs/benefits-of-orthodontry.html https://www.columbiaasia.com/indonesia/specialties/orthodontry There's more like it - none of them any kind of language authority on the subject, but I started looking at it because two colleagues (I live in Australia) mentioned it independently in chat, and upon asking, one shared a mail from their orthodontist that had the word in there.
you are a player in a game where each contestant has to choose between three boxes to win a prize. The prize is distributed uniformly between the three boxes. Each player makes a choice independent of one another. many or none of the players could choose the right box which is revealed at the end of each round. However, you have info that the other players don't- you know that the prize will be behind a different box from the previous round. Find the probability that you will have chosen the right box more than the other players by the end of the game. The problem doesn't give me how many rounds per game or how many players there are which made me first think that there was an issue with the problem, but i'm not sure. Would appreciate if someone could please confirm or help me out if its possible. Thanks
I wonder what are the advantages of using the MPS-MFS (method of particular solution combined with method of fundamental solutions) for nonhomogeneous PDEs? In order to implement MPS with radial basis functions (multiquadrics or compact supprt, doesn't matter) you still need to mesh the entire domain (like in FD) but, unlike FD, you eventually end up with either a fully-populated matrix (when using MQ) or something anyway denser than in FD (when using functions with compact support). So, if anything, the MPS-MFS must be more expensive than FD, not less. The only advantage compared to FD or FEM seems to be that MPS-MFS is a meshless method in a sense that you don't need to build the connectivity matrix (which takes anyway just a fraction of the total time in a typical simulation job). Am I missing something?
I want to self study Real Analysis, and I want to choose between these books. This is my background I am a teacher of mathematics for highschool, which means (at least) in my country, that I had seen abstract algebra untill ring theory and calculus untill integral in several variables, but not things like Stokes theorem (because standards for teachers in my country solicites some very basic ODE and, so I had seen ODE instead Stokes). This calculus class was a mix level between engineering and pure mathematics Could you tell me about the pros and cons of each of the following Real Analysis books? (Suitable or not for self-study, content quality, difficulty of the exercises, etc.) Real Mathematical Analysis, by Charles Pugh Mathematical Analysis, by Tom Apostol Principles of Mathematical Analysis, by Walter Rudin
If we look at the majority of useful or industrial materials surrounding us, like metallic alloys, glasses, ceramics, or plastics, it is often the case that these materials went through really hard times or difficult stages of their life during synthesis and processing. For example this could be the heating of a metal to an extreme temperature and abruptly putting it in a cold environment to quench it, thus typically resulting in good mechanical resistance. Perhaps the question may be not so precise, but is there some abstract reason why good material properties (mechanical, thermal, electrical, and so on...) are typically obtained through procedures that really drive the materials out of their native solid stable states? Can this somehow be related to the difference in phase flow topology between very stable states (liquid, solid, gas) and the "non-equilibrium" states obtained through extreme conditions (like heat-treatment and so on)?
I use Beamer presentations in workshops where I set questions, have students work on the answers, and then display some sample answers. I give the students a version of the presentation without the answers, so they can read back through the presentation as needed. It seems the usual way of doing such conditional processing in LaTeX would be to define a command to mark up an answer and then provide two definitions of the command, one that includes the answers and another that omits the answers. The usual way of switching between these definitions is to use distinct top-level source files. I would prefer to avoid creating an extra top-level source file for each presentation and instead control the formatting behaviour using command line arguments, an environment variable, or such like. Then I could write a script to format the presentation twice, once with the answers and once without answers. Looking through the arguments of pdflatex, I don't see a way of passing a flag that could be used in the LaTeX source to choose between the definitions. Related questions and solutions: Passing parameters to a document has answers that solve my problem, but the question does not express the context and requirements as clearly as the question here. Conditional text lines latex document - expresses a similar requirement. The exam package - seems to require multiple top-level source files.
I know the heading may be a bit misleading one. But I can't find a better one. Anyone can suggest a good one. By writing Weird function I mean those functions that are integrable but not easy to do so. I have come to know that uniform convergence of a series of integrable functions on some set confirms the fact that we can interchange the order of sum and integral. In other words, this leads to perform term by term integration for infinite series of functions. I am very curious about: Can we write any weird function as the limiting function of uniformly convergent series of simple integrable functions? If the answer is yes, then I think we can integrate those functions easily. But then after integrating we again have a series, that must be again uniformly convergent I think. In that case it may not be possible to write it as closed form. Is my observation is correct?
I'm trying to replicate a specific script 'X' that I'm seeing in a textbook: This lines up pretty well with the computer modern script X: But I'm using the unicode-math package, and the script characters in the default font (latin modern) look nothing like the script characters in computer modern (even though it's supposed to just be a modernized version). The unicode-math documentation includes a symbol list of a few included fonts, of which the concrete math font gets the closest: But I really don't like the uniform stroke thickness - it really doesn't match with the rest of the characters on the page (since I'm otherwise using computer modern / latin modern). Does anyone know of an OpenType math font that has a similar script X that I'm looking for?
Maybe the questions is too stupid to be asked or I do not know the technical words, but I could not find any answer to this question. Here is how I started to think the title: First I thought of if we look far enough if we could see Big Bang theoretically. The answer was "No", due to reasons such as opaqueness of the early Big Bang and expansion. This is okay. However, then there was a second question arised: Even if we could, which direction to look at? Then I thought if it is the furthest and the oldest, it should not matter. Because any direction we looked at furthest and oldest we should see the Big Bang if we could. Then, I know I made too many assumption, but does this conclude that we are surrounded by Big Bang and the universe is expanding not outwards but inwards? As I said maybe question was way too stupid, but still I want to hear some ideas/facts. Thank you. By the way this is the first time I post a question, I have no experience, so sorry about any mistakes I made.
So I'm writing a book, and I've used straight quotes (") in my latex files throughout the entire project. Now whenever I compile my document in Overleaf, these, to no ones surprise, come out as no starting quote, and a straight quote at the end of what's quoted. What I wish is for all straight quotes in my tex files is to actually appear as straight quotes in the generated pdf, regardless of whether they are situated at the front or end of a word. Here's an example: % In my .tex file This is a "nice quote". I want this to appear exactly like this in my document: This is a "nice quote". Is there anything I can do to override the default behaviour? I really do not want to go through my entire project consisting of many .tex files finding and replacing characters, all I want is simply the straight quote symbol to appear as an actual straight quote in my text regardless of whether it's a start-quote or an end-quote.
Consider a person pedaling a bicycle, if we consider the system consisting of the rider and cycle as a total and apply work energy conservation we can see that whatever force the rider applies on the pedal will also have an equal and opposite reaction and as both the pedal and the foot of the rider will have equal velocity the net power cancel outs? I don't know where the mechanical energy is generated in this process. I have attached a picture of a question from my engineering textbook (Engineering Mechanics by P.C Dumir) from which I got this question. I have attached a portion of the solution as well, I am not sure why It has considered the reaction force to be acting at point B and not the foot of the rider, due to which it has calculated the power by taking the difference of velocities of the subsequent parts.
My understanding is that without acceleration the "movement" of a body is a relative concept, i.e. we can choose an inertial frame of reference where the body is at rest and there is no property or experiment that can tell us that the body is in movement, because it's a meaningless question. In the same way, can I say that the movement of earth is arbitrary, just choosing a non-inertial frame of reference? The fact that I need to include fictitious forces to explain for example the movement of a Foucault pendulum, means that the earth rotation is "absolute"? The law of physics should stay the same if I choose the earth as frame of reference, but does that mean that there is nothing absolute about the movement of the earth?
Traditionally, mathematical work is presented in a linear fashion. Books, papers and articles are single streams of text meant to be read sequentially, from beginning to end. However, mathematical content often has a not-so-linear underlying structure. Sometimes it can be imagined to be tree-like, with nodes being results and directed edges being dependencies. Question Is there a format for presenting maths that is faithful to some underlying logical structure of the work? The 'logical structure' could be defined by the author. Using digital devices, we are obviously not restricted to linear text anymore. Have you seen such an 'untraditional' format being used? Prototype Imagine a PDF-viewer that can collapse and expand certain blocks of texts, as defined by the author and with the possibility of nesting. In proofs there are often steps which are very unclear to some readers and trivial to others. These steps could get elaborated on in an expandable block -- providing the necessary details for the people who want it while maintaining reading flow and brevity for the others. Using layers in LaTeX something similar can be achieved as described in this question
I'm writing documentation for a piece of software I worked on and I came across an odd sentence format that puzzled me. I was wondering if there might be a conclusive answer on the matter: In the event that a complex compound sentence contains two independent clauses and one dependent adjective clause, but each independent clause would require different articles to tie with the dependent adjective clause, would the best article to use be the lattermost article? Example: "create a" vs. "update your" Everyone needs an updated google account to access the document. Please create, or update, your account before the meeting. I do not have a background in English, please excuse any incorrectly used terminology! I did some googling beforehand in order to better articulate my question so it's possible I misunderstood something in my haste.
In order to define my question, I will demonstrate what I consider an appropriate answer. My question is as follows: How do I develop fast "shortcuts" in math? What I consider a shortcut is a means to solving a problem in a fast and creative way. My own answer would be to look for patterns and model a formula to solve the statement in an appropriate and timely manner. Maybe one could also introduce something brand new to the problem, like the perfect square technique. As one can see, I am not asking how to approach the problem, but what to do to find new and fast ways to solve it. This is obviously getting back to my question. How do I develop fast "shortcuts" in math? I value the community's intelligent feedback on this question. Thank you for your time and patience with me.
It is my understanding that there are two types of random number generation used in computer science. True random number generators that use principles of a physical property to determine their generation and pseudo random generators that use algorithms based upon mathematics such as chaos theory. True random number generators use a proposed indeterminate properties of the physical world because of the principle of uncertainty and pseudo random number generators employ chaos theory which are non linear deterministic equations whose outcomes are sensitive to initial conditions however they are deterministic and with the same initial conditions the outcome will be the same. My question is the principle in true random numbers generators and the principle of using chaos theory in pseudo random number generators the sane, as both principles use a deterministic factor the schrodinger equation in true random number generators and deterministic equations of chaos in pseudo random number generator,so what's the difference? Is randomness actually certainty? or vice versa?
I work in tech but I at some point I almost took a career path into theoretical physics. I changed my studies very late to data science and machine learning (my last masters year) and before that I was in physics and solid state physics. I am looking for research papers that could be interesting to read for a non-expert like me. I am used to read physics research papers (mainly solid state physics and spintronics). I am looking for papers that do not have super heavy mathematical development. An example would be the famous "More is different" from Anderson. It describes very well what I'm looking for although I'd prefer some mathematical perspective if applicable (but again not too much of it). The idea is to read about topics like General relativity not from Wikipedia but from research papers that are either foundational or educative/pedagogic. No books however I don't have time for them, I am not looking to study these subjects but rather acquire some insight and basic knowledge. I am looking for now in papers in : general relativity
In papers studying or searching for topological order (intrinsic or symmetry-protected) in various condensed matter systems (e.g. Field-tuned and zero-field fractional Chern insulators in magic angle graphene), a common refrain of motivation goes as follows: Topological physics began with the experimental discovery of the integer and fractional quantum Hall effect, for very clean two-dimensional electron gases in a large magnetic field. The large magnetic field is unfortunate, and it would be nice to get rid of it. In fact the large field is not necessary, and equally interesting physics can arise in our system due to strong interactions, time-reversal breaking, etc. But I realized I never really understood the second point: why is a large B such a problem? What applications or lines of scientific inquiry does it challenge? To what degree are these challenges insurmountable?
My problem is as follows: I would like to use the upright fourier package symbols together with dsfont. This produces: I therefore want to scale the dsfont symbols down to the same size as the fourier letters (or vice versa scale fourier up). I tried using scalerel, however for some reason pdflatex and Anki (a flashcard software) doesn't seem to like this. It declares no error message, however it doesn't scale the symbol (or any others I've tried for that matter). Overleaf does scale with the same code, so it's not the code. Are there any alternatives to scalerel to scale dsfont (or scale the fourier package - although this isn't preferred). I've also tried using the mathalfa package to load dsfont (although this doesn't load), as it has a scale feature. Some notes: I'm using mathastext with nosmalldelims enabled, if this makes a difference. Any help is appreciated:)
I recently encountered a quirky situation. A student wrote a sentence, and it was much more technical than this example (actually for a literature review on microbiology), but this examples illustrates the basic issue: John said, "The cat is on the table" with great anger. A parallel example: John said, "The cat is on the table" when the cat climbed up. I was always taught to offset complete quotations with commas, but I tend to only see examples with the signal phrase beginning or ending the quotation (e.g. "The cat is on the table," said John...). While I understand the sentences could easily be rearranged to terminate with the quotations and to improve style (e.g. With great anger, John said...), how should these be punctuated as they stand? Should there be a comma where the quotation terminates? Obviously, if the quotation were a regular clause, no comma would be used (the first due to a prep phrase, the second a dependent clause following an independent). But how does the quotation impact this rule? Thank you!
Localized ferromagnetism refers to materials where the magnetic moments are primarily associated with localized atomic orbitals. Ferromagnets, such as those made of iron or nickel, are called itinerant because the electrons whose spins aligned to create the magnetic state are extended and are the same as the ones responsible for conduction. I don't understand how can localized ferromagnetism exist at all. From my understanding, a large gap insulator will always be non-ferromagnetic because the full valence band always have electrons paired up and leave no net electronic magnetic moment (while nuclear magnetic moment is negligible for ferromagnetism). The energy favorability of spin alignment is much smaller than overcoming the large band gap, so the spins are always paired. This means ferromagnetism can only occur in metal or small gap insulator where the energy favorability of having aligned spins is larger than the energy favorability of strictly filling the spin-unpolarized states below the fermi-level (before considering the interaction of electron spins). Is my understanding of the necessary condition for ferromagnetism correct? (ie, energy favorability of aligned electron being larger than band gap)? If this is correct, how can localized ferromagnetism exist at all?
I have been studying Condensed matter physics, and there are some basics that are confusing me. Basically, when we find the dispersion relations of electrons in a lattice using the nearly free electron model, I do not get what the dispersion relation signifies physically. If we have one electron per orbital, I know that the band will be half-filled, which means that we have electron waves with those particular k values, but then how is the concept of Bloch wave packets incorporated? In Yang and Grivin, when the Bloch envelope is introduced, they integrate Blochs function over all k values, from which I thought all these electron waves superpose to make a wave packet of some average momentum. But then going forward, when considering the dispersion relation I got confused that will we still be looking at electrons in particular states individually? When we consider Bragg reflection at the boundaries of the Brillouin zone, does it mean that electrons with that crystal momentum form standing waves, all the while the other electrons with the other k values continue to propagate, and they all superpose to form a resultant wave or is it like when the wave packets k value becomes the k value at the boundary, it forms a standing wave?
The potential at the surface of a conducting sphere is KQ/R where 'R' is the radius of the conducting sphere and even the electric field on the surface of the conducting sphere is maximum. And while taking a test charge from the surface to the inside the potential neither increases nor decreases because electric field inside the conducting sphere is zero, so whatever potential is on the surface, it is the same inside. But my question is why don't we need to do work on the test charge kept on the surface against the electric field on the surface to move the test charge to the inside of the sphere where electric field is zero? And if we would need to do work against electric field on the surface to move charge inside then potential inside will also be different from the surface. Thank You! NOTE- i am assuming that the conducting sphere is positively charged.
Recently I have been learning about optimisation-techniques and built a simple "gradient-descent brachistochrone solver thingy" to try out some methods. One thing currently still hurting the results is the distancing of the points. Obviously, if they are first generated an equal distance on the x-axis apart from each-other, when the resulting graph becomes non-linear the distances between them start to vary quite significantly. Especially between the first two points there is obviously a massive "hole". What I would like to as is, if there is any well-established method of spacing these points by their distance from each-other instead of evenly along one axis. This at first doesn't seem to be too hard a problem; just move them a bit to be at the right place for their heights. This doesn't really work however, because when changing the "x-position" of the points their height must be re-adapted as well, leading to another distance-discrepancy and so on and so forth. As all algorithms I came up with required an ungodly number of iterations to complete, and I was unable to find the correct keywords to google this problem, this is now asked in form of a post on this forum. Thanks, Robbe.
Now here is a potentially stupid question about something that has really been annoying me recently. In the pdf viewer panel in Texstudio, there are two buttons in the toolbar that change your type of cursor: a magnifying glass and a blue scroll 'cross-arrow'. If you never click on any of the two buttons, your cursor is the standard (Windows) white arrow cursor. I made the mistake of clicking on the magnifying glass, and there seems to be no way of getting my nice white arrow cursor back - instead I am stuck with either of the two Texstudio cursor types and I find them very ugly. There is no button to choose the standard cursor, nor does it revert if you open and close the panel, or Texstudio itself. Any help?