darklight03/StackMIAsub huggingface dataset:
I'm working with algorithms that filter their input (that is, remove part of it), and I'm not sure this phrase is unambiguous: This function returns the filtered elements. Is it obvious that filtered here means the elements that have passed the filter? Or could it mean the elements that have been filtered out? If both are present, I believe it's easier to eliminate the ambiguity: This function returns a pair of lists (filtered_out,filtered_in) . This function returns a pair of lists (filtered_out,filtrate). Buf if I see just a variable named filtered, without the _out and _in suffixes, I'm not sure which one should be inferred.
Is the matrix that we get from diagonalization the only possible diagonal matrix that can be transformed from say matrix A? Assuming that A is diagonalizable? I think it is but I don't know how to prove it? The way I look at diagonalization now is that it is an algorithm but I am not sure if the matrix that we get from it is the only diagonal matrix that we can transform from A. Can someone please explain to me. Thanks.
The game of Go is... or The game of go is... Apparently the International Go Federation capitalizes it. Its dictionary entry doesn't appear to be (from what I have seen). It seems to fit the definition of a proper noun as it isn't preceded by an article (such as "the" or "an"). So which is it? Also, where does that put checkers, chess, basketball, football, etc. They are never (or at least not regularly) capitalized, yet they seem to have the same characteristics. I predict the argument is going to be that Monopoly is capitalized because it is a brand and go should not be capitalized since it is not a brand and it is not referring to a specific instance of anything. Is that correct?
I'm studying the first chapter of Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry by myself and I found this book really hard for a beginner like me, but my advisor said to me that I had to study Algebraic Geometry by this book during my vacations. Then any part of the Hartshorne's book which I find very dry or superficial I search the same subject in another books or notes available online which are easier to read and have more exemples. Then my question is where I can find more material of this concept of dimension and height explained in this page of Hartshorne's book: Thanks in advance.
Legolas prodded him across the bridge ("You'll beg for mercy, but you'll get none from me, oho no!"), up the beech-lined path ("You'll never work in this country again, I'll bloody well see to that!") Source. What's the meaning of the expression "I'll bloody well see to that!"? It means something like "I'll make sure of that!" I am not sure what it really means.
A sometimes online sparring partner of mine recently wrote: Men (as opposed to women) have had a purpose that should serve us well should this new transhuman world ever actually materialize: We provide; we protect; we invent; we drive the engine of economies. Normally, I wouldn't separate the items in a series after a colon with semicolons unless one or more of them included a comma of its own. But here the items are independent clauses, which makes me think that semicolons should be used, regardless. So, what's correct?
Einstein in his derivation of special relativity came upon the equivalence of energy and matter, and given the right circumstances, the relation can go either way - matter can become energy, and energy can become matter - right? So my question relates to the second process - energy becoming matter. While I know energy does not literally condense into matter in the sense that steam condenses into water, by analogy does the (rather loose) saying: "matter is essentially condensed energy" have any merit?
Why is it that supergravity is an extension to general relativity? In what ways? What I have read until now says the following: GR got itself concerned with gravity after the revolution of special relativity. Then supersymmetry was a plausible new theory and after the investment of supersymmetry in general relativity, supergravity was born. Thus, this chain tells us that Sugra is an extension of GR. If this is right, I don't think this is the only way to explain it, is it? How can I technically understand how this is true?
I would like to know more about the idiom "to get going" especially in the meaning "to depart", I mostly use it to mean "get started" but I've heard that it has very many other meanings. Is "get going" in the following sentence an idiom or not: We should get the car going soon or else we'll be late. Side question, where does this idiom come from?
I was wondering how precise the location of an object in a Lagrange point needs to be to maintain stability, since it seems that several natural objects (asteroids) exists together in some of these locations, and also space missions that have sent spacecraft to them have overlapped in time. As part of the same question I wonder how close to each other these spacecraft are at this points. I assume that in real life Lagrange points are not really points (mathematically), but there is a margin to them? I believe that some of the points are not that stable and require spacecraft to make adjustments. Maybe this control capability also helps them be together at these locations?
I've noticed this paper which explains that they have observed the "Hawking radiation" emitted by a black hole analog. In which sense the Bose-Einstein condensate described by the paper can be considered a black hole analog? It is essentialy that the "analog of an event horizon" for sound waves is created or are there other relevant aspects? And what has been observed which mimics Hawking radiation? Is there something in this experimental observation that can only be explained by quantum effects, such as phonons?
I am studying graphs through an online course and came across the idea of a "connected component", a "subgraph in which any two vertices are connected to each other by paths, and which is connected to no additional vertices in the subgraph." This means that a single graph need not be connected. So my question is: what, if not connectivity, defines a graph and separates it from another graph? And as an aside, if there is no such boundary, is it ever useful to think of all graphs being connected?
I guess I can call them 'politician words' but.... What do you call a word/phrase that has a lot of emotion behind it, but doesn't necessarily have any specific meaning. E.G.: Freedom, Liberty, Terrorism, Patriotism, etc. Speech words doesn't quite get it. Rhetorical dynamite words? Nahh. Sending vague messages to your medulla oblongata to scare you into voting for me is highly accurate, if unwieldy.
I used to make my presentation with PowerPoint and Keynote which both were easy but this LaTeX is driving me crazy since you should add anything you want in a hard way! In fact, I have tried to search about different types of effect I can use for LaTeX presentation but I was not successful to find many. Is there anyone knows a good source, different effect command, etc.?
So recently in the blog post on tetration, it talked about tetration with nice clean powers (calling them these because I don't know the right term). But how does it work when given a complex power? How about a decimal power? Or even just a negative power? And one final yet somewhat unrelated question: can you use some sort of method to reverse tetration by using tetration?
It's often convenient to add line numbers to a page automatically and the lineno package generally does the trick. But I've had two problems with it It doesn't seem to align the line numbers with the actual text lines - linenumbers drift between lines and occasionally skip lines as well as a consequence. Sequences of equations get skipped. Now I've seen this work properly in other PDFs and so was wondering if there's some magic option I'm missing. All I do is include the package and then turn line numbering on.
Negative probabilities are naturally found in the Wigner function (both the original and its discrete variants), the Klein paradox (where it is an artifact of using a one-particle theory) and the Klein-Gordon equation. Is a general treatment of such quasi-probability distributions, besides naively using 'legit' probabilistic formulas? For example, is there a theory saying which measurements are allowed, so to screen negative probabilities? Additionally, is there an intuition behind negative probabilities?
I'm reading Jerome K. Jerome's 'Three men in a boat' The above is about fishermen's bluff. My question is in the above paragraph a man knocks ashes (from his pipe) against the bars. But what is bars? On the counter? or on the window bars? But it is not likely under the circumstances, so I just wonder if 'bars' mean something different or particular meaning in this context.
I've spent some time on Halmos' Measure Theory and must upvote such a good book. I want to solve most exercises in this book. I'm not sure whether there is a solution manual or instructor manual that can be downloaded or read online coz solutions are very important for self-study. I've tried to google it several times and results corresponding to my search were not satisfactory.
Writing "enough" three times in such a short sentence seems too repetitive. So is there a different or more succinct way to write it? Horrible example sentence: I am drunk enough, fast enough and dumb enough that it just might work! Just removing the first and second "enough" would change the meaning, no? I am drunk, fast and dumb enough that it just might work! So can I write the sentence as follows and get across the same meaning as the example sentence or did I just come up with nonsense? I am drunk-, fast- and dumb enough that it just might work! Thank you for your replies!
I was doing a question about resonance of sound box connecting to a tuning fork. It asks why the sound lasts for a shorter time with sound box than if the tuning fork is struck identically without the sound box. Is it because the sound box dampens the vibration of tuning fork, or because due to larger contact area of box with air the box transfers vibrational energy at higher rate to air, or these two reasons are actually the same thing? So does it mean that resonator will always dampen the driving oscillator? I'm quite confused between the idea of energy transfer in resonance and damping. Thanks in advance:)
When I am composing a large document in LaTeX, I often compose the chapters in separate documents. When I do this I have to copy and paste a large block of header text to the chapter I am editing so I can make sure the formatting is correct while I am writing it. How can I import a header file of formatting information with a single line?
Considering the fault of any experimental evidence from LHC for supporting the supersymmetry idea until now, can we say that it is dead? Generally the people who are working on this subject say that MSSM probably is dead but we have some new extensions of it such as NMSSM. This argument seems weird a bit. Sometimes I feel that it is a vain try to keep an idea live because they have invested their scientific life on it. On the other side, I have to confess that the supersymmetry is a beautiful idea. But it seems that the nature does not like it and we have to accept it. Other related question is, if the supersymmetry fails, can we say that the superstring fails too?
Please tell me the meaning of stereotype in the following passage Reflexes: This is the behaviour in which movement takes place in a particular organ. This movement is very fast, stereotype, and for a short duration such as knee jerk, blinking of eyes and withdrawal of hand from a hot place". This is a behavioral science term, not sociological. Edit: Thank you everyone for the reply. Finally I got the answer from Britannica - Stereotyped response
When someone practices something, they do it often/as a habit. When someone says something is practical, they usually mean it is pragmatic/sensible/applicable, yet not necessarily practiced. And my teachers have used practicum to refer to a test, which is an examination, not an instance of practice. What is the common root of these words, what does it mean, and why do these words seem to mean different things?
Suppose you are given a differential equation and a set of initial conditions (or boundary conditions) pointing to a unique solution. Is there any way to know off-hand if the solution will be an even function, an odd function, or neither? This is, I suppose, tricky, because the fundamental set of solutions could include both even and odd functions (say, sine and cosine). The trick is knowing a priori that, for a given set of conditions, the constant coefficient for all of the odd solutions is zero and the constant coefficient for all (or some?) of the even functions are non-zero values. Or vice versa. Can this be done?
Within the multicol environment I want to be able to fix a figure to be displayed at either the top or bottom of a column (as in a scientific journal). The figure environment cannot be used in multicol and I've tried using wrapfig and even creating a minipage to do this, but the figure always seems to be placed where it is inserted in the text and therefore must be moved every time an edit is made. Is there a way to force a figure to be positioned at the top or bottom of a column in multicol?
Is there some relationship between the correlation of two random variables, and Bayes Theorem? A bit of background intuition, if W = random variable denoting number of women in a room, and L = random variable denoting number of long-haired people in the same room, we can infer about one variable given the other either using the correlation value or the conditional expectation value as given by Bayes Theorem (though Bayes deals with events, probability densities are tied to expectations anyway) Thanks
For something to be a blackhole, it must have gravity and the radius must be smaller than the schwarzschild radius for its mass. -Electrons have gravity -Electron are theoretically believed to be infinitely small points Since it has gravity it is capable of being a black hole. Since its radius is infinitely small, it must have a schwarzschild radius and thus be a black hole.
I have read online that light can produce a weak gravitational field (for example antiparallel beams should, in principle, attract weakly). This made me wonder if light can produce minute gravitational waves? Even if the waves were extremely weak (no disregarding of those high order terms in the applicable equation, whatever equation that may be), could the gravitational waves dissipate energy (on the order that is expected for cosmological redshifts) when light travels across cosmological distances? I was thinking about the debunked tired-light hypothesis regarding the cosmological redshift, and I wondered if anyone has considered a mechanism whereby gravitational waves dissipate energy.
I'm deeply interested in understanding delayed choice eraser experiment. Although I understand the experimental results, the retro causality is causing a big headache. From what I understand, the hidden variables theory is a no - no, due to experimental verification of the Bells inequality... A recent PDF that I came across confused me, hence this question... The PDF claims that the superposed eigenstates will continue to evolve, if not interrupted by a detector. My question is: Can it be established that it continues to evolve despite not being measured? Doesn't that violate the Copehagen interpretation -or- is it an understanding that is implicit to the quantum processes itself? Or am I making a noob mistake?
I'd like to quantify over all cardinalities of sets. My end goal is to make a category-theoretic arguement: For all cardinalities of sets, in the category of sets with maps as morphisms: the subclass of objects with that given cardinality is closed under the class of isomorphisms, thereby forming a subcategory, for each set cardinality, where the morphisms are isomorphisms. Can I quantify over a class that isn't a set? Is there a good way to specify this class of cardinalities? Is there a better way to go about this?
Consider two different shaped containers having same area: one is cylinder, the other is like an inverted pyramid (roughly). Both have the same level of water, the weight of the inverted pyramidal container will therefore be greater than that of the cylinder. But I know from Pascal's law that the pressure should be same in both containers. If the base areas are the same then the force (weight as measured by a scale) should also be the same. Why are the weights different?
I am working on size dependent surface energy of metals. I need to know the different energies between the atoms. Different papers use different energies but their meanings seem alike, therefore they confuse me a lot. The concepts I confuse are: bulk free energy, cohesive energy, Gibbs free energy, binding energy Can someone tell me the correct definitions of them and show their differences in detail?
Usually it is said that black holes cannot have electric or magnetic dipole, only electric charge and angular momentum are allowed quantities besides mass So, it would seem that black holes behave as perfect diamagnets that don't allow field lines to enter into the event horizon? If I place a magnetic dipole pointing near an event horizon, what is the boundary condition of the magnetic field on the horizon? does the field lines flow around the event horizon perfectly?
What is the act of making something ownerless? All I've seen is to "declare something ownerless". However, in this statement one isn't so much as announcing as he is transferring something property. Moreover, if one wants to discuss his act of transferring, it wouldn't make sense to use the word "declare" (i.e "his declaration of making this item ownerless was ineffective" sounds like a mouthful).
I'm studying model theory nowadays, and I understand how one-sorted (classical) signatures and structures work. However I am also interested in groupoids, which can not be described as a structure for a one-sorted signature. Looking up online, I came to the notion of many-sorted signature: nLab, Wikipedia. According to nLab, these can be used to describe, for example, directed (multi-)graphs, which seems easy enough: Take sorts for edges and vertices, and source and range maps from edges to vertices. However I can't see how can we describe a signature for categories in this language. We need all the ingredients for graphs (edges=arrow, vertices=objects), and at least one function symbol for composition, but since composition is only partially defined, I don't see how this can be done.
I'm trying to write a program that lets the user put in the center point of a circle and its radius, and the put in two points to form a rectangle. Then I'm wanting it to print out whether the if the circle is touching/inside the rectangle in any way or not. I feel that I need to know all points the circle touches in order to know if its touching the or inside the rectangle at all. Not sure if I made that completely clear, but any ideas?
In cosmology: A comoving observer is the only observer that will perceive the universe, including the cosmic microwave background radiation, to be isotropic. (Wikipedia) According to this definition, is Earth considered as a comoving reference frame, or are we supposed to have a "peculiar velocity"? What is the current precision for measuring if a frame is comoving or not, and for measuring its peculiar velocity? Or: From which speed (with respect to Earth) a frame would be considered as peculiar?
I have recently been studying Bayesian as well as Frequentive Statistics (mostly null hypothesis significance testing) and am confused as to the meaning of the distribution of the likelihood and observed data in both. According to my understanding, Bayesian school of though treats the distribution of the sampled data to be same as that of the likelihood of th data conditioned over the hypothesis (For example if data follows a normal distribution then the likelihood function is also normal with same mean and variance) whereas in the frequentive school, the likelihood or null distribution is basically the distribution followed by the test statistic which is different from the distribution followed by the data. Could someone explain whether my understanding is correct?
Very simply put, if one places a block of some material on a level surface and pushes it horizontally, a certain coefficient of friction is measured. If one tightly couples an oscillator of some sort to the block such that it vibrates, a much smaller coefficient of friction is generally observed. Any explanations of this effect, with varying frequencies of oscillation? Worth noting is that the vibrating coefficient of friction is less than the normal dynamic coefficient of friction. While perhaps not more efficient energy-wise, it appears it could be a useful effect.
Suppose a system A which is a vessel of water with two electrodes, connected by a resistor, placed in the water. If you apply voltage to the electrodes, energy is transferred from the battery (not included in system A) to system A. I read in a book that the form of energy transferred is work, and not heat. But basically what happens is that the resistor heats up and transfers heat to the water, am I wrong?
It's strange that he should say so. She tiptoed lest the guard should hear her. It's crucial that she should have her own car. . I've seen those three sentences somewhere on the internet. I found them very unintuitive and quite deceiving, so I've been looking for the explanation, yet did not find one. If you could explain the usage of "should" in those sentences, I should be very grateful.
I'm building a site with two main categories. One side is portfolio work, the other is written work. Among the written work, there will be personal blogs, tutorials, more in-depth articles, etc. I'm looking for a short, preferably single-word name for all of my written work. I thought about using 'writings', but it feels a bit like bad choice because it's so close to the verb to write. Does anyone have opinions on this option or suggestion for a single word?
I am required to find a research topic in this domain, so I'm really interested in finding out what kind of problems are covered in this domain, and how others are using these techniques to solve them. Preferably, I'd be more interested in if/how one can use them in Machine Learning or Pattern Recognition. I know this is a very open-ended questions, so I will not get a concrete answer. At this point, I only require a board answer to help me get started to get acquainted more with this area.
I translate some spiritual texts and this word revelation is very tricky to translate to another language that really does not have a similar word. For example: "God has sent a new revelation to the world." What could be good synonyms for it in a general (non-Christian) spiritual context, where I am coming from. The original text is in American English. Possible translations: New message New information Insight What else? Dictionaries mainly refer to Bible and book of Revelations, but that is just confusing, because this text is not about Bible and should not be confused with it.
Possible Duplicate: Would you be weightless at the center of the Earth? The issue of weightlessness at the center of the Earth has obviously already been discussed, however I am curious as to know what will it feel like as a human. Will it be absolute weightlessness as experienced by being in space, or will the mass of the Earth surrounding you pull you apart in all directions in a free floating expansion with your eyeballs popping out, etc.