darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only." -- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities. From Wikipedia. A comma splice is the use of a comma to join two independent clauses. For example: It is nearly half past five, we cannot reach town before dark. Although acceptable in some languages and compulsory in others (e.g., Bulgarian or French), comma splices are usually considered style errors in English. Would the sentence above be an example of an author making stylistic error on purpose? Thanks
Normally Latex puts hyphens inside the text: ------------------------------------ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consec- tetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean com- modo ligula eget dolor. Aenean mas- sa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nasce- tur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pre- tium quis, sem. Nulla consequat mas- sa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputa- te eget, arcu. ------------------------------------ But I want to put it beside the text, because it is easier on the eyes and better for the reading flow: ------------------------------------ Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consecte- tuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridi- culus mus. Donec quam felis, ultrici- es nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo, fringil- la vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. ------------------------------------ I know that it is possible because I have seen it in some PDFs which were most likely created using Latex, but I did not find out how it is done.
I am not a native English speaker, and I have just started to study physics in English. However, I came across the term heralded photon while I was reading a review article about optical quantum memory. I don't understand what it means. A dictionary explains herald as, "to be a sign that something is going to happen," but it does not make any sense. Below is the excerpt from the article: If a single-photon detector is placed in one of the emission channels of non-degenerate spontaneous parametric down-conversion, a detection event indicates emission of a photon pair, and thus the presence of a single photon in the other channel. Such a heralded photon is emitted at an arbitrary time, however, making it unsuitable for many application. Would you help me understand this term?
In the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Huddleston and Pullum use the term "determinative" for the lexical category of words like the, etc. And they use "determiner" for the grammatical function that is characteristically filled by determinatives (but which can also be filled by things such as genitive noun phrases). In an older generation of reference grammars, however, notably Quirk, et alia's Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, the use of these terms is exactly reversed. That is, "determiner" is the lexical category and "determinative" is the grammatical function. The difference has been bugging me for a long time. Can anyone provide a principled explanation as to why we should prefer one over the other? I'm sure Huddleston and Pullum had a motivation to alter terminology that's been in use since Bloomfield's day, but I can't find any discussion in their work.
I've been trying to determine an explanation for the falsity of a logical statement for some time now and I've had no luck in figuring out exactly how to go about it. The two part question goes as follows: Consider the arguments below. If the argument is valid, identify the rule of inference that establishes its validity. If not, explain why. a. If Robert understands the concepts correctly, he will be able to finish his assignment in two hours. Robert finished his assignment in more than two hours. Therefore, Robert did not understand the concepts correctly. b. If taxes increase, the housing market will decrease. Taxes are not increasing. Therefore, the housing market will not decrease. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the way to determine the falsity of a logical statement? Any help is appreciated.
I seem to remember hearing a medical term for the act of causing pain to one part of your body to relieve a chronic pain elsewhere in the body. For instance, someone who suffers from chronic back pain might break their finger so that they can stop focusing on their back pain. Or someone with a broken arm might intentionally drop something on their foot so the focus of pain transfers to their foot for a while. Is there such a term for this type of pain management technique? I was thinking this was called "deferred pain", but I cannot find anything on Google for that. Most of the search terms I've come up with lead me to "referred pain," but that's not the term I'm looking for. That's completely different than what I'm talking about.
I am trying to prove if f is continuous and closed ("closed" means the image of any closed subset of the domain is closed) then f(closure of X) equals the closure of f(X). I was able to prove that if f is continuous then f(closure of X) is a subset of closure of f(X). Now, I am trying to prove the other way around: closure of f(X) is a subset of f(closure of X). So here is my attempt: Let y be a point of the closure of f(X). Then y is either a point of f(X) or a limit point of f(X). I am wondering if f(X) is a subset of f(closure of X)? If this is true then in the former case, it is easy to conclude that y is also a point of f(closure of X) and in the latter case, I can show that y is also a limit point of f(closure of X). Since f is a closed mapping and the closure of X is closed, f(closure of X) is also closed, which implies y is a point of f(closure of X). Also, if you know how to prove that if f(closure of X) equals closure of f(X) then f is a continuous and closed mapping I would really appreciate it if you could give me some hints. Thanks a lot.
I have a question regarding the usage of the words to and with in the sentence "He lodged a complaint to/with the Authorities". Which is correct? Note: Lodge in this context is "to present (a complaint, appeal, claim, etc.) formally to the proper authorities". I have been told that, in the said sentence, with is correct and not to. But, I am confused as to why with is correct and used more often than to, especially since the definition of with is "accompanied by (another person or thing)", while to is defined as "identifying the recipient or intended recipient of something". How could someone lodge a complaint with the Authorities? In my mind, with denotes that a person is lodging a complaint together with the Authorities. Could someone explain this to me?
I am trying to prove the following statement regarding nowhere dense sets: "In a metric space X, the frontier of an open set is the set of accumulation points of a discrete set." As far as my attempts go, I have gone back and looked at an earlier proof of Baire's Category Theorem and worked out the details (as to my understanding, it should be similar). However, I am still not seeing how to prove the above using said theorem. Does anyone have any hints or suggestions as to how to proceed? Note: I have already proven (as part of the above) that: a)In a metric space X without isolated points, the closure of a discrete set in X is nowhere dense in X. b) In any space X, the frontier of an open set is closed and nowhere dense. c) Every closed nowhere dense set is the frontier of an open set.
My question concerns the usage of "as if" as an idiomatic interjection. The references I have consulted (etymonline, online dictionaries, etc.) seem to agree that "as if" is used in this context to convey incredulity or doubt. This is how I have always thought of it. The other day, I was with friends who used "as if" to express their surprise and joy about a wedding proposal. They weren't being sarcastic or incredulous; they were genuinely happy about the proposal. Here is a loosely paraphrased version of what they said: "As if they're getting married!" Is my friends' usage of "as if" standard? Is it a primarily regional distinction? (I am in Ontario, Canada right now.) The closest example we could come up with is someone says "I can't believe that you won first prize!" Of course, the person can and does believe it, so their words ought not to be taken literally. Is it the same idea with "as if"?
A year ago, I took a statistics course at my university. The course was based on Rice's "Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis". Apart from the fact that I did not find the book terribly good, I found that the lectures did not aid me a lot in understanding the material either. I did pass the course, but I didn't feel I really understood the material. Fast forward a year. I have now come to realise that statistics can be a very interesting and useful subject, but I haven't done any statistics ever since the course I just mentioned. I'm thinking of doing some statistics courses for my Master's degree, though. Question: do you know any good resources (video lectures, books, solved problems) which I can use to brush up my statistics knowledge? I like books that have a large number of solved problems and worked examples, so I can check whether I actually solved the problems correctly.
I am fairly certain that there's an idiomatic phrase for this, referring to either the situation or the person. It's on the tip of my tongue. Scenario: Alice tells Bob to stop making a such a noise with his power tools. Bob replies that he had already stopped an hour ago and was anyway done for the day. How would you describe Alice, who instructed Bob to do something which he already did or was going to do? In other words, she gave him a redundant order that serves no purpose other than to reaffirm authority and stroke her own ego. Alternatively, she's making a show of strength by demanding that something that's already been done, be done. It's similar in concept to the French phrase "faire la mouche du coche" but not quite. It's along the lines of gadfly, backseat driver, busybody, or tooting one's own horn. EDIT: The closest matches so far are control freak and megalomaniac, but those still don't describe the post-facto aspect.
The figure shows a circuit consisting of a battery, a switch, two identical lightbulbs, and a capacitor that is initially uncharged. a. Immediately after the switch is closed, are either or both bulbs glowing? Explain. b. If both bulbs are glowing, which is brighter? Or are they equally bright? Explain. c. For any bulb (A or B or both) that lights up immediately after the switch is closed, does its brightness increase with time, decrease with time, or remain unchanged? Explain. I really don't understand the concept of how a capacitor affects the flow of current in a circuit, and am having an incredibly hard time figuring out this question. At least an idea of where to start would be great. I had thought that for part A both light bulbs would begin glowing since the capacitor isn't charged, but i have no idea how to tell which one is brighter. I also think that for part C, the brightness of the bulbs would decrease over time after the capacitor is charged because once it's charged the voltage of the capacitor equals the voltage of the battery, hence there is no voltage potential and no current. Am I on the right track at all for this???
Consider the following scenario: I get in a spaceship, and travel really close to the speed of light for a while, and then come back. A lot of time has passed on the Earth, but since I was traveling so fast, I only experienced a few years passing. So, my friends on Earth are dead, whereas I'm only a few years older. But what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around, is why is it them that's dead, and not me? After all, given what I understand about relativity, it's just as fair to say that my spaceship stayed still, and it was actually the Earth that traveled really fast and then came back to my ship. In that scenario though, the Earth being the fast-moving ship, and my ship being the stationary body, wouldn't it be that I am dead, and everyone on the Earth is just a few years older? If there really is no preferred frame of reference, then why does the ship-traveler live while the people on the Earth die?
I often find myself putting excess commas and brackets (parentheses for all you US English speakers out there) into sentences, in hopes of rendering it more 'readable'. The trouble is, I am never sure just how much is too much and often need to seek the services of an adjudicator. However, this time no one could decide: how should the following phrase be punctuated? Like this, without commas? During the Great Depression the Nazi Party gained a lot of popularity because they promised to make Germany great again and there was nothing the German people as a whole wanted more. Or like this, with only one comma? During the Great Depression the Nazi Party gained a lot of popularity because they promised to make Germany great again, and there was nothing the German people as a whole wanted more. Or like this, with two commas? During the Great Depression, the Nazi Party gained a lot of popularity because they promised to make Germany great again, and there was nothing the German people as a whole wanted more. What option is the most grammatical and readable?
I need someone to help me to define the meaning of the word "en masse" in the following context: the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and Japanese residents were interned en masse " Which of the following interpretations is correct? the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and Japanese residents were interned together the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and all Japanese residents were interned
I came across the following thought experiment, and I would like to understand whether the controversy around it is justified. Imagine an experiment in which a mathematician is put to sleep with some kind of drug. He is located in a room that is designed in such a way as to keep him completely isolated from any kind of external information. The researchers have a sleep inducing drug that is able to put you to sleep and make you forget it was even administered. After the researchers have put the mathematician to sleep with this drug, they toss a fair coin. If it comes up heads they will wake the mathematician up once and administer the drug again. If it comes up tail they will wake him up twice, each time administering the drug again. Whenever the mathematician is awoken during the experiment, they will ask him for his best guess regarding the result of the coin toss. Eventually the experiment ends, and the researchers will awaken the mathematician a final time and tell him the experiment has ended. During the experiment, what answer should the mathematician give as his best guess for the result of the coin toss ? I think he should say that odds are the coin came up tail, but I am very curious what other people make of it, and whether there are any grounds for dissent at all.
I'm looking for good book recommendations for preparing for the International Physics Olympiad. As stated on the IPhO syllabus, the topics covered are about the same as those in the first year or two of a physics degree: Mechanics: kinematics, dynamics, celestial mechanics, hydrodynamics Electromagnetism: Maxwell's equations, circuits, matter in EM fields Waves: damped/driven harmonic oscillators, waves, interference and diffraction, geometrical optics Modern: special relativity, matter waves, particle and nuclear physics Thermodynamics: laws of thermodynamics, heat engines, phase transitions However, there's less of an emphasis on complicated calculations, and more of an emphasis on problem solving and insight. For example, multivariable calculus is almost never used; instead many questions can be elegantly solved by symmetry. I'm looking for textbooks or problem books to bring me to this level, starting from the level of high school physics.
I'm having trouble understanding the simple "planetary" model of the atom that I'm being taught in my basic chemistry course. In particular, I can't see how a negatively charged electron can stay in "orbit" around a positively charged nucleus. Even if the electron actually orbits the nucleus, wouldn't that orbit eventually decay? I can't reconcile the rapidly moving electrons required by the planetary model with the way atoms are described as forming bonds. If electrons are zooming around in orbits, how do they suddenly "stop" to form bonds. I understand that certain aspects of quantum mechanics were created to address these problems, and that there are other models of atoms. My question here is whether the planetary model itself addresses these concerns in some way (that I'm missing) and whether I'm right to be uncomfortable with it.
I am interested in self-studying real analysis, and I was wondering which textbook I should pick up. I know all high school mathematics, I have read How to Prove It by Daniel J. Velleman (I did most of the exercises). I have completed a computational calculus course which covered everything up to and including integration by parts (including the substitution method and Riemann sums) I am currently considering: Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin From what I have heard this is not very well suited for self-study and that while the exercises are extremely difficult, if you take the time they are worth the effort. Calculus by Michael Spivak I have heard that while Spivak explains proofs in much more detail than Principles, it doesn't cover all of the material in the latter. Understanding Analysis by Stephen Abbott I don't know much about this. I have only seen some comments saying that it is an excellent introduction to analysis. Mathematical Analysis by Tom M. Apostol Extra clarification edit: I would prefer a book not to ''dumb down'' the material, something that would not hold my hand through every step, something that would force me to fill in the gaps myself instead of explaining every single step. That is why I am currently leaning towards Rudin, but before I decide I would still like some information on the book by Apostol.
The answers to this related question suggest that to and in order to are pretty much interchangeable, the former being preferred in informal contexts. My question is about negative clauses. According to the answers to the linked questions, the following two sentences are fine and mean the same thing: We were speaking loudly to wake up Mr.Smith. We were speaking loudly in order to wake up Mr.Smith. Can the same be said about the following sentences? We were speaking quietly not to wake up Mr. Smith. We were speaking quietly in order not to wake up Mr. Smith. I am asking because when I used the first variant a friend of mine corrected me and said that I must use either in order or so as to make the sentence grammatical.
I have taken a course in abstract algebra, which used Fraleigh's book. This semester I'm taking a course called Rings and Modules, which uses Bhattacharya's book, which is fine for the most part, but sometimes I can't understand the material. Today after the lecture I spoke to my professor, and he told me he thought some explanations and constructions in the book aren't very good. So I have Fraleigh, which is insufficient for the material I'm studying now, and I have Bhattacharya which sometimes confuses me. I've heard so much about Dummit and Foote, so I'm wondering if it's worth the cost of buying it now only to improve my understanding of certain topics? I'm also planning on taking Galois theory next semester, and if Dummit and Foote covers that as well, I suppose that's another reason to buy it because the Galois course at my university also uses Bhattacharya.
I am wondering whether to use a restrictive relative clause such as: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft , which also includes helicopters, and although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." or non-restrictive relative clause: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft that also includes helicopters, and although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." I am leaning toward the latter because the second half of the complete sentence relies on the inclusion of the statement "also includes helicopters" for its meaning. However, the first part of the sentence ("multicopters belong to a family of rotorcraft") makes sense by itself (i.e. it could be a complete sentence), and the second part of the sentence is really another statement attached with "and". So I'm not sure. Would it be better as two separate sentences: "Multicopters belong to a family of aircraft called rotorcraft, which also includes helicopters; although they appear to be similar, a multicopter's design is mechanically much simpler." Side-note: Now I'm going crazy, wondering whether it should be "include" or "includes". This is why it takes me so long to write anything. sigh
There is a related question on this site here: Why glass is transparent? Which explains that glass is transparent because the atoms in glass have very large energy differences between energy levels and photons of visible light do not have enough energy to excite electrons from one energy level to another. Whereas, electrons in atoms of most other substances can be excited so the photon is absorbed. But my question is, why don't these excited electrons return to their original energy level and release a photon in the direction the original photon was travelling, hence allowing the light to pass through the object? Edit: I had not realised earlier that this exact same question had been asked before on this site here: Why aren't all objects transparent? So, I shall clarify my question a bit more. The answers to the linked question say that the energy of the excited electron is lost so the light is re emitted as waves with longer wavelengths which we cannot see. I'd like to know how exactly the electron loses this energy. One answer to the linked question states that the energy is lost to lattice vibrations, but I'd like to know how exactly an excited electron still bound to the atom can transfer its energy to lattice vibrations.
I often hear the following, particularly during announcements when travelling by rail or air: On behalf of myself and the rest of the team, I would like to wish you a pleasant journey. I've always wondered whether this is grammatical. I found this question, which discusses how to form such a sentence, but it still seems unusual to me even if it is correct. Something closer to the following would seem more rational: On behalf of the whole team, I would like to wish you a pleasant journey. This is because the whole team is not speaking. Contrast this to the first example in which the speaker claims to be speaking on behalf of himself. Can either of these sentences be used to mean the same thing? Is one preferred over the other?