darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
The sentence is: "Since they were first invented, we have advanced, and designed stylish glasses for people whose vision need to be corrected." I've been told that the verb needs to be "need" and also that it needs to be "needs". Need: The argument is that the need refers to "people's need" and therefore by implication refers to a plural group, i.e. people need ... Here the antecedent is considered "people" ... Needs: The argument is that the need refers to "vision", i.e. singular ... Here the antecedent is considered "vision" ... Which one is grammatically correct?
I'm trying to dive under this incredible world of non-WYSIWYG. So, for my first main challenge I need to write my master's thesis with LaTeX. And I found some difficulties at the very beginning of my work: the cover page. I need to customize the cover page like this model (it's the mandatory model for our thesis in my university): I need the university logo to be within the dotted retangle. I tried to fit it there without success.
In class my prof said that when showing a system is at equilibrium it suffices to show that the moment at one point is zero. Why? Why does showing the moment at a point is zero imply the moment of the whole system is zero? If I misunderstood him and the statement above isn't true, how do you show the system is at moment equilibrium at all points of the system? You obviously can't show the moment is at equilibrium for infinite points individually.
To me, that means: I can start dreaming after buying a lotto ticket. This is weird because without the lotto ticket, I can have my day-dream anyway. Shouldn't this be something like "your chance to realize your dream has arrived"? This slogan kind of gives me the opposite feeling about buying a lotto ticket, as if it is always nothing more than a day-dream to win the lottery.
A human ear responds to a wide range of frequencies. My teacher already has said me, when you are speaking about a part of your body that it belongs to it- it is not artificial et cetera- you must say the following: the eye the ear . . et cetera. But, I just have seen the above sentence. Would anybody kindly elaborate it? Many thanks
A variation of "smother", obviously, to describe someone with an inclination to smother other people. "You're just too needy and smothersome." Thoughts? Corrections? Suggestions? Edit: Apologies and clarification. I did find a Google search result that states that this word is an adjective which describes something that is easily smothered. But to me, this word sounds akin to "bothersome": causing bother, troublesome. To me, "smothersome" wouldn't describe something that is easily smothered, instead it would describe something that does the smothering...
I am getting familiar with some basics ins probability theory and I have a question concerning moment-generating functions and characteristic functions. The following is cited from Wikipedia: A key problem with moment-generating functions is that moments and the moment-generating function may not exist, as the integrals need not converge absolutely. By contrast, the characteristic function always exists (because it is the integral of a bounded function on a space of finite measure), and thus may be used instead Is there a connection between the following two facts? the characteristic function is (real) analytic moments of all order exist Furthermore I have one question in mind somehow: If a distribution has a characteristic function that is analytic, is the distribution then moment-determinate?
I came across a shop selling the fruit jam that my sister had been looking for. But the fruit jam came in apple and peach flavours, I was not very sure which one my sister liked better, so I decided to buy both. Now, given that situation, I want to explain why I bought both apple-flavoured and peach-flavoured jams to my sister: I bought two fruit jams in different flavours because the jams would be sold out. I could not [take any chances / take any chance] . Thank you Kitty
I want a word for a person who accepts advice of others. Basically, I am reading a play and in that there is a ruler who accepts the wise advice of others. What word can be used to describe such a person? Example : That man is indeed __________ since he imbibes the noble qualities of the wise by the accepting their advices. Please provide a reference sentence with your answer.
Is there any particular problem or scenario where quantum logic may be applied? If so, what is the benefit of using quantum logic instead of classical logic? I've been reading quite a lot on this topic but it still seems like pure theoretic considerations to me. If there is so much effort put into forming new type of logic based on quantum mechanics, are there any practical uses of this type of logic?
Earlier I asked this question. So, similarly, imagine the same type of list with elements having a guest and probability of attending, but now each guest also has an age. How can we calculate the expected average age of the guests of the wedding? I can heuristically group the guests into age ranges and then compute the expected number of people in each age range, but this doesn't tell me the expected mean.
Hi I am very new to this aspect of physics and I am having trouble with the derivation of the Rayleigh-Jeans from the steps shown at the hyperphysics web site. I have emailed Dr. Rod Nave who is listed as the person-in-charge at the site but it appears there is no one at that email perhaps. It would really be much appreciated if anyone can have a look at the uploaded image file here and follow the queries I make on them.
Following the measurement of gravitational waves, many sources described them and explained they carry energy away. What I don't get is how this energy will get transfered back to anything else. If the fabric of space-time itself is vibrating, it would seem to be in impossible for any physical object to gain this energy. What am I missing? How would one hypothetically get energy out of gravitational waves? If impossible, does the universe end up with nothing but GW?
It is to my understanding that it is grammatically correct to say: If I be [something], then [something]. because 'were' is the subjunctive of 'to be'. However, is it correct to use the subjunctive of other words in a similar way? For example: If he jump, the trampoline will shake. or I request that he file these papers. If it is correct, is it incorrect to use the simple present tense in those contexts?
http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/models/m_perlin.htm This method involves getting a random dataset, sampling it at various resolutions, and adding together the result. I've heard it claimed that this is actually "Fractal Noise" or something diffe http://www.itn.liu.se/~stegu/simplexnoise/simplexnoise.pdf This PDF claims that there is mass-misinformation about what Perlin Noise is, and explains a completely different method (I'm not talking about the discussion of Simplex noise at the bottom, but about his summary of Classic Perlin noise). Who is correct?
I use pst-eucl package and I am not so happy with the names defined for its keys (because the names are difficult to remember). I want to rename some of the keys for my own purpose by creating a new package wrapping the package. For example, I want to rename: PtNameMath to PointLabelMath. PointNameSep to PointLabelSep. PosAngle to PointLabelAngle. PointName to PointLabel. Could you show me the new package wrapping pst-eucl with renamed keys above.
What is the proper adjective that best describe the way a person keeps looking at any other person or object so that as if his eye is about to get out. As an example, when a man keeps looking at a beautiful lady for a long time without even twitching. Sometimes it might be considered an envious look or sometimes it might be due to profound admiration
Like other words that start with "arch-", archenemy is partly derived from arkhi or arkhos from the Greek (Wikipedia), meaning chief. But why is it said differently, using a "ch" sound, from archipelago and archaeology, which use a "k" sound? The "ch" in archenemy is pronounced similar to that in archbishop and archdiocese, even though they're followed by consonants in the latter, but a vowel the former. What made it break from the rules?
How do we check the geometry of the phase space ? I mean in classical mechanics we use position and conjugate momenta as a space of all possible states of the particle. How do we know that this phase space is flat? In other words, is phase space of classical pendulum flat or curved like a cylinder? Any reference concerning theory of dynamical systems for physicists and chaos would be useful.
I read online a statement to the effect that (I'm paraphrasing): Goedel's incompleteness theorem shows that we cannot even have a complete and consistent theory for the natural numbers. I am under the (qualitative) impression that this statement is true within the axioms of natural numbers themselves, so that if one expanded the of axioms one could prove all of the true statements that can be expressed solely in terms of natural numbers. Note that this larger system itself is not complete and consistent. Does Godel's incompleteness theorem have the feature that it shows that these larger systems are somehow representable with the axioms of the natural numbers?
Mom was saying that dad wanted me to mow the lawn and asked what time I would be coming home. In the sentence above, who is asking what time I would be coming home, mom or dad? If it's mom, why isn't it dad? And if it is the dad, why isn't it mom? Basically which subject is the and for? Mom or Dad? What are the rules?
Why do we have a situation where the past of "to blow" is "blew", but of "to glow" is "glowed"? And don't say "flew" if you mean "it flowed". The poem Lovers, by Phoebe Cary has many examples of these. How did these differences originate? Did "blow" and "glow" come from etymologically distinct backgrounds that have just come to be spelled and pronounced the same way? Is there a general rule for words like these?
I found myself writing this: .. and this is before we consider mathematics proper. It seemed like a natural kind of thing to write, but I couldn't find an example of it. I get the impression it's OK to use it in this way; to mean the major mathematical schools in this case (rather than people who just do mathematics). Is there any objection to this?
I am designing a wedding card, I need to know how to start it, these are some samples: Mrs. & Mr. Xyz invite you.... Mr. & Mrs. Xyz invite you.... Mrs. Abc & Mr. Xyz invite you.... Mr. Xyz & Mrs. Abc invite you.... Which is the best one to suit a wedding invitation? or suggest me some other lines which looks correct and polite in reading too. Note: Couple inviting here are mom and dad of the bride.
I want to draw two cylinders connected with a common belt around them. Therefore, I need two cycles and two tangents to these two cylinders. I know there is a general solution for my problem How can I draw a tangent ending smoothly in a circle?, but there are two specifics I cannot resolve: I want the belt to have another thickness (i.e. both tangents and outer lines of two cycles) I want to draw a vector of specific length along the belt between two cycles Is there any way to achieve these two goals?
The motivation for my question is understanding how electricity gets through your skin as opposed to running along it, and how the presence of things like water on the skin affect the relative deadliness of electricity, or ability of it to permeate the skin. I don't understand how to view the body as a resistor, as the skin, and all the components of the body have different resistances and thicknesses. How do I know what parts of the body carry significant current? And how much current in total?
My question: In this version of the experiment, doesn't the single photon source's direction define which slit the particle passes through. Also, with reference to the apparatus described here, where there is an additional single slit, does it mean to say that diffraction happens even for single photon's at the (first) single slit. I understood what the experiment says after the particles pass through the slit, but I'm not able to understand how the single particle/photon source set up works. Hope someone can help me understand how that works.
Is there intuition for "mathematical" entropy. I know that physical entropy tracks the order in a dynamical system, for thermodynamics. As entropy goes up, general randomness and disorder goes up. However, what is entropy in the mathematical sense? There seem to be many kinds of entropy, but what is there a general defining characteristic or use that is common among them all? I'd appreciate some intuition for this interesting subject. (Edit: Alex R. provided a great link for the above) Pertaining to my interests, what is Entropy over a Fractal? Is this Entropy taken by treating the Fractal as a probability distribution? What purpose does taking the Entropy of a Fractal serve?
The shape is somewhere between a v and a u. I'm almost certain it's a letter character as they have both lower and uppercase (used for specific and total volume respectively). Since the v and V characters are also used for things like voltage and velocity, it's important for me to be able to distinguish these. The top six symbols below are what I want, the first four being lowercase and the next two being uppercase.
So, we were ask to consider the Fresnel Equations for parallel and perpendicular waves (with index of refractions). Then, we are ask to prove some equations in which "... for nonmagnetic non-conductors" The Fresnel equations got reduced and the indexes of refraction disappeared. I do not really know where to start, but in our reference book we have: normal incidence and oblique incidence topics. Any help?
Some nouns used in medicine ironically contain the letter that is difficult for the sufferer to say, or difficult to deal with: Lisp ('s') Rhotacism ('r') Blaesitas ('b') Dyslexia (difficult to spell) Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (fear of long words is a long word) Aibohphobia (fear of palindromes) Lamdacism ('l') Stammer/stutter (hard consonants easier to stumble over) The closest I found was 'jocular terms', but this seems a bit too cruel. How did they come by these names? Is there a collective term that isn't so cruel? I've looked at this ESE question and this reddit post hoping for an answer to this, but it didn't cover the collective term and more pointed out the cruel irony of it.
So, if your promotor is kind, you would thank him as: "I thank Prof Smith for his kindness." Now, what if your promotor is demanding, as in tough and exigent when it comes to work? How do you express this quality? It seems to me the following is not correct English: I thank Prof Smith for his "demandingness". Which is the right word to replace "demandingness" above? If it could help the forum choose, I need here to convey also the impression of "at times excessive but on the whole beneficial".
Excuse my terrible English knowledge, but I have been wondering this for some time already: What is correct for the next phrase?: And he was there. alone. sad. and crying... or And he was there. Alone. Sad. And crying... or And he was there, alone, sad and crying... On the first and second cases, I use periods for separating the state of the subject. For some reason, I like it to give better suspense. Given the way I am using the periods, should I use Capital letters after them, or not? These periods are pretty much like commas... ... But maybe I am terribly wrong and should never use periods for such purpose? Should I always follow the third case? Just using commas?
I am having trouble using the term "secular" to convey a sense of bringing a religiously neutral ground to government, society, and culture. What term is better than "secular", that is less localized than the US-connotative sense, but conveys the same general meaning to multiple countries? Secularism is often denoted the same, but from country to country it is practiced on a sliding scale in terms of how truly neutral laws are. Some of us on the Atheism.se are trying to broaden the scope of the site and are interested in methods for doing this. The usage of "secular" (that I am looking for) should convey taking secularism and using it as a tool for atheist questions to hone in on issues regarding equal rights, activism, promotion.
As a very bad speller I love to find justification for my lack of ability. I'm wondering about the reasoning/history that 'Flower' and 'Florist' have such different spelling. I'm guessing it has something to do with 'flow' where a flower is a thing which flows and it would be too much to have a person working with such things be a flowerer. Any better explanations?
Why are both the terms 'structure' and 'model' used in mathematical logic / model theory? Are they just holdovers from different subjects or is there a principled reason for having both? For clarification, I'm not confused about any actual definitions or usages, just why both terms came to be used; I could, after all, survive perfectly well using exclusively one or the other with little chance of confusion.
I woke up recently to find the following structures on my lawn; they resemble bubbles, but are formed from ice (we had a moderate frost overnight). There were eight of these 'bubbles' on my lawn and one smashed one on the adjacent path. They were only present in my garden, and nowhere else. What processes could have allowed these 'bubbles' to form in this shape? 'Bubbles' on grass: Damaged 'bubble' This was found on the paving slab and was not touched:
To my knowledge, the contents of a float environment are put into a box when the float is defined. Is it possible to proccess a user defined command/macro when the float is actually typeset, e.g. to put a watermark on that specific page (which isn't necessarily the page the float is defined on)? Is it necessary to add something to the definition of the float enviroment or can I use some command within its body?
When we have a set of data, where X is the cause, and Y is the effect, we can use linear regression to predict values for Y, based on values of X. I have learned that you may only safely apply this for values of X that fall into the domain of X for the input data. Can we also use linear regression to do reliable predictions about values of Y for values X that lie outside of this domain, and if so, what can we say about the reliability of these predictions? I would love some answers and possibly some interesting sources on this subject.
The reply to a question about nucleosynthesis, that heavier than iron elements are produced in supernovae explosions, raised for me the following question which I could not answer by googling. Partially because the search for planets and stars brings out astrology answers! Explosions are dispersive, nevertheless we find minerals in clumps, not only uniformly dispersed in the ground. Is there a coherent presentation that explains how minerals end up in veins and bands?
How is it possible for a grad student to do research in any modern area of string theory like AdS/CFT or ABJM if they need to start grad school by having to learn QFT from scratch? Is there a time-line over which this is even possible? Or one necessarily needs to come to grad school knowing at least Polchinki level string theory to be able to understand AdS/CFT or ABJM? I mean even if one has worked through enough of Polchinki's book one is likely to stare blank at the ABJM paper. Then is it even possible for someone to get to research level with something like this if they start from basic QFT in grad school? I would like to know what if is a practical implementation.
The question Why is a black hole black? states that stuff can't escape the event horizon and must ceaselessly pull inwards towards the singularity. At the singularity the forces become infinite. However, I heard that Hawking radiation (but not information) can escape the event horizon. Can something similar to Hawking radiation escape the inside of the event horizon and the singularity? Would a person inside the event horizon see Hawking radiation emitted from the singularity? It is hard for me to understand this because I think as soon as one photon is emitted one quantum step out away it starts to fall back to the singularity at the center of the black hole again.
I know that It is time (understood: for the speaker or for a group of people including the speaker) to do something. and It is time I or we did something. do not mean the same thing: the first is a simple statement of fact, whereas the second means there is some kind of emergency. How about these same structures when the action is to be performed by a second or third person? Does the nuance stated above cease to exist between It is time for you/him/her/them to do something. and It is time you/he/she/they did something. ?
I've seen a video by Walter Lewin in which the magnetic pull between two wires is unaffected when an aluminum plate is situated between them. Can you explain what materials let magnetism pass through and how this can happen? does that give clues on the nature of magnetism? I originally thought Lewins says that conductiveness is the key factor, but I discovered that superconductors don't let it pass
What is the best word/expression to describe a phenomenon or tool that, despite its disadvantages, is used by people? In fact, there are some alternatives for them, however, there is a weird inclination toward them. As an example, smoking is a good one that most of people know its harms and probably its alternatives, however do not give it up. Update: As another more specific example, take Microsoft Office. There are several (probably more powerful) alternatives for that, however, remarkable numbers of users are still using MS Office. Is it only a habit?
I know that as you heat something it expands, but this is proportional to the change in temperature, so if I compare the density of a liquid right before freezing and right after then the thermal expansion would have a small effect. However, when a material changes state the density can change rapidly. I know water gets less dense as it freezes, and I remember this is not typically the case, but do any substances have approximately the same density in both liquid and solid states?
I have been thinking about these adverbials for a long time to understand this connection of "early/later" with "on". These adverbials are used for introducing a sentence or they are placed at the end. My first explanation was "on" is a kind of intensifier, almost meaningless. Now I tend to see this "on" as a clear marker to indicate that "early/later(adj/adv)" are used as adverbs. But all the same I don't find a formula from which I can derive these adverbials by using the two words. ... early ... on ... / ... later ... on ... - What words could one use to get a formula that means "early/later on"?
A Doppler redshift would also give the illusion that galaxies were rotating more slowly then they are with the degree of illusory slowing in proportion to the degree of redshift. Do more distant galaxies appear to be rotating more slowly than closer in galaxies on average, and would this not constitute additional evidence for expansion, or if not would it not constitute evidence against expansion?
In the usual circle topology (open arcs), it seems that the intersection of a finite number of connected sets is either empty, a connected set, or the disjoint union of two connected sets. Can we construct topological spaces in which the intersection can be the disjoint union of more than two connected sets? If so, how are these topological spaces called due to this property?
In any double slit experiment, which particles are passed through slits, and what do the detectors look like - both the one at the end of the apparatus and the one at the site of the slit? Oftentimes, photons or electrons are used as examples. However, as far as I know, in real experiments much larger particles like silver atoms are actually used. My expectation is that any apparent weirdness will naturally follow from the setup of the experiment.