I"m attempting to efficiently describe a threshold of when someone has moved from being a consumer to a contributor. My context is a church setting. I'm responsible for drafting a description of the different barriers or thresholds a person encounters or crosses in the process of integrating into a local congregation. Here is what I have developed so far: The first threshold is called resonance. This is the process of tentative agreement with the beliefs of the church, initial trust of the church leadership and sensing that this is a place where one can develop rewarding relationships. The next threshold is participating in a class or small group and volunteering. I had hoped to find a word with some weight or vibe like "resonance." Perhaps induct?


There are three generations of electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. The second and third generations of electrons and quarks are unstable and decay into lighter particles. Why are there exactly three generations? Is it possible that there are more generations of increasingly massive and unstable particles that we aren't able to discover yet (for instance, at higher energy levels that we are capable of), or is there some known reason why it has to be exactly (and can't be more than) three? edit: in addition to the link above, I also found this question helpful: What Do We Get From Having Higher Generations of Particles?


There is a quantity known as scattering cross section which is given as a function of frequency. It means the ratio of the scattered power by the particle to the ratio of the incident power on the particle. Is radar cross section the same thing as scattering cross section? Some electromagnetic solvers (like CST studio) give radar cross section and absorption cross section only, so I guess it should be the same as scattering cross section.


When using quantifiers, it is probably important to pick up certain habits that veterans agree upon as early as possible. Since it was pointed out to me by a highly esteemed member that it's sometimes better style to avoid quantifiers, I was wondering what the convention is with respect to when to use them and when to avoid them. Since they are logically equivalent to the words spelled out in plain English but do it in less space, I was under the impression it would never really hurt to use them, but that is probably a naive view to take, so I'm looking for some advice there.


Several trade products, especially food, have been named after their places of origin throughout the centuries. To mention just a few, champagne, after Champagne, France. calico, after Calicut, India cashmere, after Kashmir, India/Pakistan port, after Oporto, Portugal muslin, after Mosul, Iraq alsatian (a German shephard) after Alsace, France china (tableware), after China canary, Canary Islands spa, after Spa, Belgium Is there, in linguistics, a phrase or term for naming something after its place of origin? Edit - Re Tim's answer, although most of them are trade products, the term I'm looking for also includes animals, behaviors, recipes, etc.


I have a probability book (for actuarial exam preparation) and the author states as an assumption that "if the probability space is rectangular" in order to show two random variables are independent: I could not understand why we need this assumption, so I looked at my math stats book, and it appears the author here does not mention the rectangular region assumption: What is to be made of this?


What is the job title or name for people who creates content for a social media website to drive traffic. For example, a new social media site wants viewers so they have a small group of people who are content experts write posts and answer other posts. They may or may not be paid. Options I've got so far: Volunteers, moderators, early adopters, betas... For the record, I don't like these options...


I'm a little confused on what to answer to this: Determine whether the function floor(x) is big omega of x. The above function holds for integers but not for real numbers. According to the definition of big omega x could be either real or integer so I'm unsure what is the right answer although I've seen that the solution is that it does hold according to some online solutions. Could somebody explain the correct answer for this? Could I say on my answer that it holds for integers and not for reals? I'm taking a basic course on discrete math so I'm relatively new to this concept, thanks for your help.


This is a follow up question to the link below: Remote bibliography I have the same problem, I can't use a bib file from Google drive. I'm sure I'm running Biber and biblatex, because if I use a local location it works just fine. Yet Biber wouldn't find the remote bib file... What I'm not so sure of is whether I'm getting the URL correctly. What I did was make the for public and the downloaded it after which I could get a URL. That was the URL I used. Is that the correct way to obtain the correct URL?


The Wikipedia article on deep inelastic scattering suggests that the experiment shows baryons have three point of deflections (corresponding to three quarks) and mesons have two points of deflection. How are the electrons fired in this experiment being detected, and how exactly do the two or three points of deflection appear in the data? Are they fired at a target consisting entirely of baryons, or are collisions with non-baryons somehow filtered from the data?


In Carroll's we read ...The Unruh effect teaches us the most important lesson of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) in curved spacetime, the idea that "vacuum" and "particles" are observer-dependent notions rather than fundamental concepts. I wonder are we talking about the same observer or two different observers using two different frames? Put it another way, can the same observer who observed nothing using a frame detect a thermal spectrum if switched to another frame that is uniformly accelerating with respect to his previous frame? Does it apply both ways? I mean if an observer detects particles, does this observant-dependent notion of particle content of a given state, implies that he can switch to another frame in the blink of an eye, and detect nothing?


Blue is perceived darker than yellow by the human eye, because of biological principles within the eye. I can understand that therefore, when making a picture black&white in software like Adobe Photoshop, the software takes this perceptual information into account. However, in very old analog photographs, blue also appears darker than yellow. What is the reason for this? Is this just a lucky coincidence of the chemistry of the photographic film? Or is blue in some way really darker than yellow?


Here is a sentence, slightly modified to be generic, for an award. My supervisor insists that the sentence is incorrectly written, although I cannot spot the error. ...the person was located and after XXX, BOB was immediately deployed to the frigid river to render assistance. Bob expertly directed the recovery of the severely hypothermic survivor and provided critical medical care enroute to XXX Hospital, saving her life. Sure, there are other ways to write it, but space is an issue and I feel this is the most effective way of writing the sentence. I was given the advice that it might be a dangling participle, but I am not sure it is. Thoughts?


Is photon interaction , electrostatic interaction outside the nucleus and gravitational interaction is all due to electromagnetic waves ? and CAN be identified as with the de Broglie waves ? I thought of a theory in which is assuming that photon interaction , electrostatic interaction outside the nucleus and gravitational interaction is all due to electromagnetic waves and can be identified as with the de Broglie waves in order to explain how the force of gravitation act between particles . So can this assumption stand a chance of being theoretically and experimentally correct . Please add your comments regarding this in your answer and please explain why or why not .


Adobe Typekit fonts install themselves in application fontlists (Word, InDesign etc.) but do not install in the Mac Fontbook. They are rented so this is their way of enforcing licence terms. Since they are effectively hidden in the directory structure, I cannot find a way of using them in Latex documents with the fontspec package. Has anyone managed to work around this and use them with fontspec??


I'm just going to use the standard article class to create my slides manually. The question is, what pagesize is appropriate, and why? Should I take into account my projector's resolution and/or the laptop's resolution? How should I set a custom pagesize, in case I need a substandard one? Actually: I used a projector at school once and gave a presentation of slides created with Beamer. It worked fine (although I'm not sure I could have improved the resolution to better fit the projector/laptop). How can I bring the default Beamer pagesize over to the article class? That might work too.


Mica is a good conductor of heat but an electrical insulator. According to free electron theory (which applies only to metals) free electrons carry heat and electricity. Therefore, thermal conductivity is directly proportional electrical conductivity. What about dielectric materials? In the case of mica, it conducts heat but not electricity, so what are the carriers responsible for this behavior. If the are electrons as they are in metals then why they don't carry electricity too?


Having a tad bit trying to prove this question, Show that the set of reflections is a complete conjugacy class in the euclidean group E. Also, do the same for the set of half-turns and inversions. For the first set (reflections), I have that the set of reflections is a complete conjugacy class in E because the conjugates of a reflection are reflections with a translated, rotated and reflected mirror plane. Hence, the conjugate closure of a singleton containing a reflection is the whole E group. (This I got from some definitions). I don't know quite how to prove the question. Any help would be great or any suggestions. Thanks in advance.


I'm trying to find the fixed point for the system (see document attached) but it seems so hard and I don't know what Im doing wrong. Can somebody help me with this. I need to find the to look for the value where the bifurcation occur (for that process i need to evaluate the jacobian matrix for the system on the fixed points and the looks for the delta, which is really easy) but this is the only part where I'm stuck. Please see document attached


I am attempting to write a personal statement at the beginning of a resume and am having a quandry as to how to write the following: I am a super hero with seven years' experience in blowing out fires with my exhalation... I assume that since the experience doesn't belong to the seven instances of years, this is incorrect use of the plural possessive. How can I write this statement properly?


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.


When the context is science, the word "theory" means a logical/mathematical framework which tries to explain the phenomena. Infact in science "Theories" carry some "Claims" or "Predictions" while every sub-discipline of science could be presented in many number of theories. But in "Mathematics" the word "Theory" seems to merely refer to a sub-discipline of a mathematical field of study. For example I could call "Number theory" the discipline of "Studying Diophantine equations" or "Group theory" the "Study of certain types of algebraic structures(namely Groups)" or "Differential equation theory" the "The methods of solving differential equations". Does the word "Theory" in mathematics have some special meaning like bringing some claims or predictions or is it just a reference to the mathematical sub-discipline we are studying?


Work is force applied over distance. Is it also reasonable to say that work is (the same thing as) the transfer of energy? When work is done, the equivalent energy is transferred. But if energy is transferred, such as by heating something, is that (or could that be) called work? Also, if a black body is subjected to a stream of energy, which it absorbs and radiates away, is any work done? The black body, let's assume, remains at a constant temperature, but energy is transferred to it and then radiated away. Is any work done? So what I'm really asking about is how the term "work" should be used.


I was just wondering that is it ever possible that some object produces only invisible light when it catches fire? Something like invisible flames. If this is possible, can you please give one example? I have checked a phenomenon called Back-body Radiation and energy emitted by excited electron when fall back to lower orbit, which are responsible for colour of the flame. It looks like it is possible to produce invisible flames. Please correct me if I am wrong on any point.


Stephen King (author of "The Shining") in his book "On Writing", writes: American grammar doesn`t have the sturdiness of British grammar (a British advertising man with a proper education can make magazine copy for ribbed condoms sound like the Magna goddam Carta), but it has its own scruffy charm I'm interested to know what King means by "sturdiness" here. Can anyone give some examples or more insight into what exactly King is talking about?


I could only find this blog that suggests that complacence is "is a calm satisfaction with oneself" whereas "complacency means a self-satisfaction but coupled with a lack of awareness of what is happening around it." Is there a difference between the two and if not, is one more proper than the other? What would be the grammatical term for such a difference in the ending of a word? I just remembered that stagnation is probably the preferred word, so perhaps ignore the stagnancy vs stagnance part (stagnancy seems to be entirely incorrect anyway).


I've heard a grammar rule which is, if there is any verb followed by a preposition except the 'to' preposition, the verb must have a 'ing'. As example, I've this sentence: I am going for playing. Where the 'play' verb is in 'ing' form. But in this sentence: I am going to play. the 'play' verb is in normal form. I just want to know that is the rule correct? If correct then is there any other exceptional preposition like 'to'?


If I marry a woman and she has a child, I am a step parent. But what if the sequence is reversed? For example, suppose I am married to a woman, get divorced and she subsequently has a child by someone else. Is there any word in the English language to describe what my relationship (if any) is to this child? This is my situation; I'm close to this child and always at a loss to describe our situation as other than family friend. Can anyone offer another suggestion?


I am new to LateX and I would like to know if there is a class which allows for creating a book cover design to send to the printers ? I already have the book cover design done in Adobe Photoshop with the front cover, spine. In other words, the final image is ready. How would Memoir Class work for this ? Now i only need to get it ready for printers, so I need to know how to set bleeds, spine, crop marks etc. to be able to send the final print ready pdf to printers.


Today our teacher said that dual spaces are "big" and told us that this is a consequence by Hahn-Banach's theorem. So I was wondering whether the dual space of a space is always "bigger" or equal compared with the space itself? I thought a good way to check the adjective "big" by mathematical methods is to ask whether there is an injective map in the dual space. I am very interested in any comment on this.


They say inflation must have occured because the universe is very homogeneous. Otherwise, how could one part of the universe reach the same temperature as another when the distance between the parts is more than light could have traveled in the given time? Why can't this problem be solved without inflation? If each part started with the same temperature to begin with, then they can have the same temperature irrespective of the distance between them. Am I missing something here?


I have a set of numbers (each one corresponding to a payment made from the same person) and I would like to assign a probability value to a new specified number given that historical data. I've looked at the Chebyshev's inequality as a simple means to do that but I don't get the expected results. The formula evidences only obvious differences from the time series and also gives too little probability value to numbers that are lower than at least one of the historical ones.


Assuming I rotate a disk, I want to know how long it takes to completely stop, and the number of revolutions it made since I removed my fingers off the disk. Lets say a DVD I rotate with my fingers. I only know the radians per second (velocity) of the last moment I touched the disc. Can you guys tell me where to start? Im trying to implement this on an iPhone app. So it would be nice if you mention equations. It should not be exact.


What is the term for words that can be used as the opposite of themselves? I know there are a few of them out there, it is possible to 'Dust a cake with Icing' and if the cake were on a shelf for a long time (must be a bad bakery) then it would be acceptable to 'Dust the cake' to remove any dust particles... In this case, 'Dust with Icing' implies the addition of something to the cake where 'Dust the cake' implies the action of removing dust from the cake Other examples: Bolt - To hold in place or to Run away with haste... Trim - To remove a small portion or to add small bits that make it pretty...


In an English-language text I wrote recently, I used this sentence It ain't pretty, but it'll keep! to describe the durability of a newly erected wall that (due to my poor masonry skills) looks hideous, but should withstand the floods it'll be shielding the property against. In my native German dialect, this is a valid use of "keep." But is it actually in English, too?


I saw this expression: "the aim of the activity is "to show the fly the way out of the fly-bottle". " (It is connected with this other expression: "I don't know my way about".) I grasped the general sense of the expression but I don't understand clearly how it is formed, i.e. it's logical analysis (e.g, is "fly" a noun in this case?). Which are the logical analysis and the literal meaning of the expression "to show the fly the way out ot the fly-bottle"?


So, from a cursory understanding of English history (and I am very happy to say that) I was able to, one might note that the cultural history of those who lived in England might proceed: Britons who spoke Brythonic Romans who spoke Latin Angles, Jutes, Saxons, et. al. (Anglo-saxons) who spoke various Teutonic dialects Normans (ironically, from the same stock as the former, but trained in French) My guess (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Latin influence in English was more to do with the Church and the Normans than it was to do with the Romans directly, but I was wondering if there are words which may be shown to be direct descendants of the ancient Britons' tounge?


I am writing a short description of a social experiement. The objective is to get a better idea of the way people think. I have some troubles to understand the difference between those two phrases: To encounter people and better understand their way of thinking To encounter people and better understand the way they think Is there any difference in meaning between those two phrases? If so, could you please tell me what their are? Thanks a lot for your help!


Say a roller coaster car is going up a ramp to a drop. At some point it needs to traverse a curve to get to the drop. In general, since the car is constrained to the rail, how is it able to move around on curves without breaking the car? Does there exist some kind of free motion for the wheels to move a little bit? Otherwise it seems like the car would bend.


I understand that increasing current decreases the time taken for a capacitor to both charge and discharge, and also increasing the potential difference and charge increase the time taken for a capacitor to charge while decreasing the time taken for it to discharge. However, I am having troubles with deducing what effect resistance will have on it? Is it as simple as V = IR, and increasing resistance with a constant potential difference will decrease current (and thus increase the time taken for a capacitor to both charge and discharge?)


Given a plane with an unbounded number of random points, is there an economical algorithm to find the Voronoi zone of any one selected point? I've considered making a "sweeping" circle from that point, adding a line to the zone boundary as I meet points of increasing distance; would this solution be correct as soon as I have enough lines to enclose a polygon? (The obvious corollary question is "If stopping as soon as the point is bounded isn't correct, when do I stop?")


are you aware of a diagram showing all the connections between tex-related methods/engines. It would use terms such as tex - latex - context - luatex - xetex - xelatex - pdftex - pdflatex - etex and could even be extended to terms like xdvipdfmx and so on? All this is getting confusing, I think and it would be a good way to summarize. Thanks


I have demonstrated that weight only is measured based on the gravitational pull of where you live. For example, the gravity on the surface of Mars is three times smaller than the gravity on the surface of Earth. So my question is simple: If we take into account that weight is only measured based on gravitational pull on that mass, if there was no gravity how would we define mass? That is, would mass weigh anything if no gravitational pull acted on it? Then what would be mass?


I was recently shown a pretty cool video about common cosmological misconceptions. It got me reviewing the different between event horizon (current distance within which we will see/interact), particle horizon (current distance within which we have seen/interacted, and the Hubble Sphere (distance at which things are currently receding at the speed of light). I've found the following figure extremely helpful: But I'm very confused about the event horizon currently lying outside of the Hubble Sphere. If the universe is accelerating in its expansion, then it seems like everything outside of the Hubble Sphere at this moment - will never be in causal contact, never be within our light-cone, and thus be outside of our event horizon. Is this figure correct?


If black holes must be in black holes in all reference frames, does the formation and or evaporation of SEVERAL black holes occur in the same order in all reference frames ie if one observer determines that black hole A formed, then black hole B, then black hole C, would any observers in any reference frame also be able to derive the same sequence for the formation of the black holes (or for the evaporation)?


Possible Duplicate: How to prevent the paragraphs to spread out over the page? When I try to put some tables in my document I get lots of white space between the section (which I am guessing its because latex is trying to adjust positioning of the tables). Sometimes I get tables appearing on a single page by themselves. Is there a way to avoid this? Below is an image of a page showing the ugly spacing. (The boxes represent text areas)


QKD protocol is a technique that allow two parties to share common secret key for cryptographic purpose and defined as being secure, by definition. But I am still wondering how can we measure that QKD is secure? In terms of what? and how can it be clearly proved? Is it possible by code it in any programming language like Java? well I am still looking for a good research topic under this area.


Angular velocity is the rate of angular displacement about an axis. Its direction is determined by right hand rule. According to right hand rule, if you hold the axis with your right hand and rotate the fingers in the direction of motion of the rotating body then thumb will point the direction of the angular velocity. The direction of angular velocity is above or below the plane. But what does it mean? I mean in linear velocity the direction of velocity is in the direction of motion of body but what does it mean that body is moving in one direction while the direction of its angular velocity is in another direction?


Give some Lagrangian we use the principle of stationary action to find the desired euqations of motion for something (e.g. a field). A lot of modern physics seems to be based on the principle of stationary action. I read it works for classical mechanics, general relativity, Quantum chromodynamics, quantum electrodynamics, weak interactions and more stuff. However, is there a field where the principle of stationary action does not yield the desired result or where it fails (contradicts some experimental result)?


An object that takes physical, material, or corporeal form can be held and seen by humans. When we describe the opposite, something that cannot be held or seen by the naked eye, words like spiritual or non-material are used. I'm looking for a word that's more specific: something to describe the sequences of numbers packed into data chips and technology whatsits. "Information, whether of material or ________ form, can be found at the library." Assume that the library carries books and CDs/DVDs. In order to avoid wordy descriptions, does anyone have any suggestions for a single word that can fill the blank? I avoided antonyms of "physical" because they refer to things that are otherworldly.


I'm trying to decide which sentence is correct, or if they both are. which would you recommend as easier to read/understand for the average reader? Hop the rocks quickly and get the star. Quickly hop the rocks and get the star. I'm using this in a promo for a game I made. Assuming both are valid, would it be better to use the first sentence since it begins with a shorter word?


There is evidence that some galaxy clusters may experience some bulk rotation. If this is true, how valid is it to use the Ideal Gas Law to estimate the mass (actually, it calculates the acceleration needed to create the pressure gradient - from which the mass is derived)? One of the conditions for an idea gas is that collisions with the 'container' are elastic. If the galaxy cluster is rotating, then gas plasma particles will pick up velocity as they travel outwards (due to the centripetal force) and not bounce back as far inward. This is clearly an inelastic collision.


I was reading this introduction to EPR and it seems to imply both that there is a unique g-factor of a given compound, but also that we can calculate multiple g-factors for a compound. For example, here's a picture on that page This clearly shows more than one g-factor for mitoNEET & Fdx. So is there only one g-factor or is it the g-factor at each specific value of the magnetic field that is unique? P.S. Is there a good book/ primer you could recommend to learn more about EPR spectroscopy?


Since one can use singular they to avoid sexism in a way or another, I got stuck trying to figure if there is a polite word meaning something like "a group of both Ladies and Gentlemen" that could be put in the following phrase without implying in sexism: Do the Gentlemen need something? I thought about using Gentlemen, however, I have no clue if it implies in a group of men only. Can you help me out?


I want to create a cloud of magnetic particles that will levitate in an electromagnetic field with an electromagnet. Is that possible? Is it easy to do or has it been done? I already have the magnetic nanoparticles and I just want to levitate them to form a 'cloud' so that each particle will stand in the air at specific distance from the others. They have the same size/weight. Would that be a problem? They need to sit in the air with specific distance between each other. Any ideas? Thanks!


When I pronounce the phrase: "I'm proud of you" to communicate that I'm proud of the person I'm talking to, do I only need to stress the word "proud" a bit? I think that stressing the pronouns "I" and "you" are only needed when we want to make contrast between people, but it's probably less common. Am I right? The common stress pattern I think is something like: da-DA-da-da.


I am trying to setup the Predictive Mode of Emacs and to use it with the LaTeX-mode. I have one problem: as soon as LaTeX-mode is loaded, it loads "auto-overlays" and it takes up to two minutes before I can begin to work, which is very annoying. I believe that this "auto-overlays" is used to switch between dictionaries according to where I am in the LaTeX document. Here is the part of my .emacs that concerns the predictive mode: (require 'predictive) (autoload 'predictive-mode "predictive" "predictive" t) (set-default 'predictive-auto-add-to-dict t) (setq predictive-main-dict 'dict-english predictive-auto-learn t predictive-add-to-dict-ask nil predictive-use-auto-learn-cache nil predictive-which-dict t) (add-hook 'latex-mode-hook 'predictive-mode) (setq completion-use-hotkeys nil) (setq predictive-ignore-initial-caps t) (custom-set-variables '(auto-completion-syntax-alist (quote (accept . word)))) Do you have a solution?


So, I was at the bar last week, Behind the bar they have these signs with jokes on them. One of them said "If your drinking to forget, please pay me first"(This isn't the question, I get this joke). Somebody at the bar, noticing it, said to the bartender: "I don't have a drinking to forget, but if I did, what about it?". The bartender, looked confused, and then the guy pointed to the sign. The bartender still didn't get it, and he laughed at her. But I didn't get the joke either. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Why is it funny?


I'm relatively new to TeX, which means I did nothing more than homework and some math things with it. Now I'd like to write invoices with LaTeX (for reusability etc.) I am not searching for a template. What I'm looking for is actually more a starting point and maybe some resources that already helped other people to get started with writing invoices or similar kinds of documents. Where should I start in order to learn to write more complex documents with LaTeX? What helped you?


If A,B,C are normal subgroups of a group G where B is a subset of A. Then show that A intersection BC equals B(A intersection C). I m a newbie in abstract algebra n i m new to rigourous mathematical proof. I know that to show two sets are equal i must show that each one is a subset of the other. Plz solve this question


In diagrams I often see light waves depicted as little sine waves that travel through space. And often when describing polarizers, the explainer will angle their hand to show the angle of polarization and bob it up and down in a sine wave action, apparently emulating the amplitude of the wave. My questions is, is the amplitude of light really like this? Where it moves up and down or side to side in space? Or, is the sine wave relationship just an analogy?


All the time I see people replying with "of course I will" or "yes it is!" (to "it's not that good" and not placing a comma after "of course" and "yes". The second case seems even more extreme, as even placing a comma would not help - it would still be a comma splice. However, if I do place the commas, the sentences become very confusing, as many people would probably read that as "I will, of course" and "it is, yes". Now, to me it seems that grammatically, there is no option but to leave the commas in place - though, again, this may cause confusion. Any ideas?


Higher algebra by hall and knight states that"A compound ratio can be formed by multiplying together the fractions which denote them or by multiplying the antecedents to form new antecedent and multiplying the consequents to form new consequent" but what is the meaning of the word compound ratio.If ratio is used for comparison then what is the purpose of compound ratio? Can anyone help me?. I will be grateful.


Which of the last three verb patterns apply to the verb 'recommend'? I recommend that you wait. (present subjunctive, American usage) I recommend that you should wait. (substitute for present subjunctive, British usage) I recommend waiting. (subject of the gerund not mentioned) I recommend you/your waiting (subject of the gerund mentioned) I recommend to wait. (subject of the infinitive not mentioned) I recommend you to wait. (subject of the infinitive mentioned)


Is a good example of 'intestinal fortitude' when someone faces his/her fair share of adversity and bounces back from it? Or when a boxer is repeatedly pummeled and knocked down in a fight, and he keeps returning to his feet to continue notwithstanding the beating endured (he's showing a lot of heart, internal strength and 'guts')? Can you say 'He had the intestinal fortitude ('guts') to call me a buffoon'? Is 'ovariological fortitude' the female equivalent of this term?


In Lagrangian Mechanics we choose the path of least action. Given a uniform gravitational field, and a particle of finite mass; and fixing two points the start & end-point we consider all paths connecting the two points and minimise the action. This turns out to be a Brachistone, as first shown by Bernouilli. When we fix the end-point vertically below; the Brachistone is in fact astraight-line. But is there a principle in Lagrangian Mechanics that allows me to choose the point vertically below? Of course, we know from Newtons Mechanics that this must be the case. But how do we determine that end-point entirely within Lagrangian Mechanics?


In the context of usable security (related to computer science), a major challenge is to provide security means in such a way that all of the people including those with some disabilities (e.g., blindness and deafness) be able to use information systems. So, in some cases we need to refer to these two general group of users. The question is how to do so in a respectful way. For example, referring them as ordinary and disabled users is a bit harsh. Also, I don't like using "disabled users and users without any type of disabilities" to refer them. What's the best way to describe these two group of users? Shorter options are preferred!


Classically, if one has an electron orbiting a proton, how can the magnetic field felt by an observer with the same instantaneous velocity as the electron be calculated? It seems that I may find the magnetic field felt by this observer by boosting the proton to the same frame as the electron at some instant, and then calculating the B-field generated by transforming the E-field of the proton in the rest frame. Is this not the correct reasoning? If not, why so?


Can I make a heat pump beat the Carnot efficiency? Why is the Carnot process the most efficient one? If I have a heatpump that is sphere shaped, and cascaded in layers like a onion can I beat Carnot efficiency? Heat would be transferred and concentrated from the outermost layer that is in contact with ambient air, and brought towards the center to heat a fluid.


Please, help me to clarify this question. Assuming that there are many books I owe to a person and some of them are here on my table, is it correct to say: "The books I owe you are on my table"? Will it show that those books just belong to ones I owe to the person, and somewhere else are other books I owe him? Or will it strictly mean that these are the only books I owe? The confusion is because "the" is often used for an exhaustive list. And if to say: "The book I owe you is on my table" - the same question - can it just show that this is one of those books and there are other books I owe somewhere? Thanks.


I am wondering if saying "tune to this music" would make sense? Guitars can be tuned to particular note, can people tune to song, or music, or idea? Google doesn't return many results for "tune to" so I guess it sounds strange, but I found a song "Tune to the Music" by Status Quo. I am asking this question because I am looking for a name for new web site related to music and songs and tune-to also came to my mind.


I was doing so research on neutron stars and I bumped into this stock exchange page. Does a neutron star burn? Quote from an awnser: The Pauli exclusion principle causes the neutrons to resist further compression. That is, the neutrons, being identical fermions, can't all be put in the same state. So to get them closer and closer together you have to go into higher and higher energy states. This confused me, how can a neutron be in an energy state. Does this relate to nuclear strong force in any way?


Person A uses the phrase "eager beaver" to mean an enthusiastic person. Person B chuckles. Basically my question boils down to who the weirdo is, so to speak: A, because "eager beaver" is outdated and the sexual connotations are too strong to hope that one should understand the "normal" meaning B, because "eager beaver" is a perfectly benign phrase with no sexual meanings whatsoever. Anyone who sees sexual connotations in this phrase is simply being immature.


Can someone please comment/elaborate on the statement: "The normal distribution is a common model of randomness." I would like to understand it more deeply. Source: Perhaps someone can point me to a theorem or proof supporting this statement. So my question for this thread really comes down to: If a process can be modeled well by a normal distribution, is this a necessary and sufficient condition for the process to be called "random"?


I took screenshots of both the question and answers provided, however there are a couple of steps I did not understand and i put red arrows over equal signs i didn't get. (normally there's an asterisk above the equals sign and an explanation, but none for this question). I'm asking if someone can explain both where the formulae come from and also what's going on in the transformations.


Please, I am not a mathematician so highly mathematical textbook language will not make sense, that is why I am forced to post this question here. I am reading about Checksum and CRC data integrity techniques and I have come across the terms "primtive polynomial" and "prime polynomial". I will really appreciate if someone could give example of these and explain what makes them primitive and prime. e.g about polynomials used in Cyclic Redundancy Check that are implemented using hardware feedback registers it says "The best ones are not necessarily prime (irreducible) nor primitive"


The following is a comment made by a poster in response to this article: Absolutely correct. Intentionally obscuring who you are and what your desires are may lead to heartache and in rare occurrences broken lives. I personally, unlike this articles author never ever want to come close to breaking another individuals life. What does it mean when your life is broken, or to break someone's life?


Which of these forms is better: list of tasks or tasks' list? Another question is whether I should use an apostrophe or not (tasks's list vs tasks list). Other phrases which are similar to this, but aren't quite what I'm looking for, are list of projects and task's action (one task this time). Maybe the answer is obvious, but English is not my native language so I need to understand it.


What is the difference between a battery and a charged capacitor? I can see lot of similarities between capacitor and battery. In both these charges are separated and When not connected in a circuit both can have same Potential difference V. The only difference is that battery runs for longer time but a capacitor discharges almost instantaneously. Why this difference? What is the exact cause for the difference in the discharge times?


"It don't make any difference," he said. "I'm washed up anyway. Some nose puts the bulls on me tomorrow, next week, what the hell? I just didn't like your map, pal. A nose means a person, I guess, but is there a idiom like 'put the bulls on somebody'? Or if has something to do with 'put balls on', it doesn't make much sense in this sentence. I understand this sentence as 'somebody would kill me.... but I don't care." (from 'Red Wind' by Raymond Chandler)


I can't find the difference between these two words. I want to describe the property of something that is repeating at a fixed period (don't ask me to use periodicity, that would be for another question). For instance, in the sentence: I can see that there is ... in candy sales. People are buying on average more at the beginning of the month than at the end of the it. Which of the two terms "cyclicity" and "cyclicality" would best fit, and for what reason?


I would like to know whether there is a grammatical or semantical difference between "notion of " and "-notion". I do not know what to search for to answer this question so maybe someone can help me here :-) For instance "development of a notion of IT-Infrastructure" vs. "development of an IT-Infrastructure-notion". The first one is very long and doggerel, but the second one is maybe wrong/not good style. In other words: I need a section title where I develop (extract literature, derive facts, ...) a notion or understanding of the term IT Infrastructure. What would be a correct one?


I usually tend to see the behavior in which someone takes an action, and people criticize, and even suggest what they should have done, yet when they take that same suggestion people still criticize. For instance: I'm slim; when I eat with my family, everyone exclaims at the amount of food I'm eating. When I eat normally, they ask "Don't you know, you should eat more so you can grow better?" When I don't eat, the same shouting takes place. So in other words, is there a word I could use to describe them or their behavior in this regard?


I am using a template from, "The Legrand Orange Book" (name of tex file is main.tex) and the author has a very nice template that looks like: However, after using "Make Index" from WinEdt, my index comes out all plain and no color like that above. He mentioned in his template to run: makeindex main.idx -s StyleInd.ist from the command line. How can I implement this index template in my document. In the folder that he has available, he already has the .idx and ind file. But whenever I run WinEdt's "Make Index", it gets over written to look like: How can I make the index in WinEdt to look like the first image above?


I can relate to what it says, I feel, but I don't quite understand it - does that make sense? Probably not. My first language is not English, so the confusion is great! How would you interpret this in plain English: As long as I retain my feeling and my passion for Nature, I can partly soften or subdue my other passions and resist or endure those of others.


What is a Christoffel symbol? I often see that Christoffel symbols describe gravitational field and at other times that they describe gravitational accelerations. Then, on some blogs and forums, people say this is wrong because Christoffel symbol is NOT a tensor and thus has no physical meaning. Which of these statements is the right one? What is the significance of a Christoffel symbol in differential geometry and General Relaivity?


What is the correct term for a person who twists facts and provides misinterpretations in an effort to appear infallible? The kind of person who is given a simple logic puzzle, fails to solve it correctly and tries to persuade others that he was in fact correct e.g. by denying obvious implications that were necessary to be deduced in order to find the correct solution.


As the title says, I'm looking for a word to describe some clip-on module which provides a new ability that improves the base concept/entity. Some context, such a word could describe: A warp drive module on a space ship A standalone plugin which provides a completely new feature set If possible, the word might imply a necessity, that without such an add-on the entity is lacking and incomplete.


I am writing some software documentation. There are data structures that are organized in trees and every element in the structure can be child or parent "to"/"of" every other element. I am not a native speaker and my instincts are pretty divided on the matter themselves, so I guess I have to turn to higher powers to answer that question. Hence, I turn to you: Is it "to" or "of" in that case?


I only have a very basic understanding of general relativity, so this might sound stupid. But as I see that gravitational objects orbiting each other, even if one of them is massive, as long as their paths don't lead to collision, they curve back, like a sling shot. So since singularity is supposed to have zero radius, it seems nothing should actually collide with it. And even if it's non-zero, only near zero, there could still be a possibility that a particle falling (depending on its initial orbit) could eventually just get a sling shot around it, never colliding with it or falling into it. Does that make sense? Or do all paths really lead directly at the exact the center of the singularity?


I have started my Differential equation course recently. And My professor was interchangeably using the term boundary condition and initial condition. I'm wondering what are the differences of their meaning in this context when dealing with the partial differential equations. I thought one would not need a boundary condition if a system extends to infinity, but the case of wave on a string would need, since it's a finite system For the initial condition, it always mean the initial state of the system. Can anyone tell me if my understandings are correct. Thank you!


I have done the following experiment: A DC generator is worked by an object falling and connected to the DC generator via string. The DC generator is coupled to a LED in reverse direction. The observation was the following: As long as the object falls, the LED is off. When the objects hits the floor, the LED very shortly lights up. Why is that? It seems to be a Reverse-recovery effect but in the opposite direction.


Wikipedia states "a vacuous truth is a statement that asserts that all members of the empty set have a certain property". Clearly the statement: 'all elements of said (empty) set possess said property' is vacuously true. However, one could argue that the negation of the statement: 'no elements in said set posses said property' is also true. Shouldn't that mean that the statement is both true and false. I understand there may be slightly different definitions of what constitutes a vacuous statement, but I suppose this particular issue will show up nevertheless.


Say I have a data point with included errors and I want to build some continuous distribution around it. Normally this might be a Gaussian because one knows the sigma and mean right off the bat. However, if you have asymmetric errors it becomes a lot harder. It seems like you should be able to model a Gaussian about a data point with such errors using a skewed normal distribution, let me know if I am wrong. Essentially, I would like to know if there is a way to generate a standard normal distribution if you know the mean, max, and min? The mean being the data point, max being the data point plus the upper bound, and min being the data point minus the lower bound.


Mostly I read that the x-rays are produced from the matter surrounding the black hole which spirals into the black hole due to its gravity and is consequently heated up. If the black hole has a main sequence star or a giant star as a binary partner, the BH pulls matter from the partner, which then forms an accretion disk around the black hole. But sometimes I read that Hawking radiation is also producing X-rays or even gammarays. So is this possible or very rare and only occuring within very old BH? Or is Hawking radiation only about virtual particles wich often annihilates each other or one going into the BH and the other becoming real?


As we know electrons are charged particles, hence they have a field surrounding them, which has some energy. Now in electron diffraction the electrons have their influence on other electrons and themselves also get affected. So my question is that why this influence of an electromagnetic wave (because of electronic charge) not considered to explain this phenomenon, as that interaction of EM wave may lead to that pattern.


Is it possible to solve an equation with different operations in it correctly without using orders of operation? I was having a discussion with my friend who believes you can solve an equation from left to right no matter what the operations are. I told my friend that the answer you get would not be correct, but they still insist they are right. Who is right and why?


I need to know the typical energy balance of an IC engine and where this energy goes, but I am unsure what exactly they are asking? Engines are not my main strengths, so I could do with as much as help as possible and as simple as it can be please? I tried researching this but everything I read was very complex and I didnt really grasp it. Could anyone please help me?


I've always been confused by the terms washroom, restroom, bathroom, lavatory, toilet and toilet room. My impression is that Canadians would rather say washroom while Americans would probably say bathroom or Saint John's in the same situation. I guess the difference here is not only in different kinds of English, but also in whether one is referring to a room in their house or in some public place. Which do you usually use? Please specify the difference if you use more than two from those six with different meanings, and also where you are from (i.e. what type of English you speak).


I understand that, given some function space, distributions lie in the dual space. In that sense, they can be thought of as functions of a "function of a real variable" variable. But the common representation of the delta distribution as an infinitely large "spike" of a certain infinite magnitude suggests that perhaps they can also be thought of as functions of a real variable, where the codomain is some expanded set of which the reals are a subset. Is this possible, or is delta a special case?


Let's take a bottle (no cap) with half its volume filled with water. If we rotate the bottle at some slower average velocity, water does not drop out of it. The same principle works on Roller Coasters. Wikipedia says that the phenomenon of Vertical Loop is used here. What is the physics behind this? (I mean, Which opposes or equilibrates gravity during the vertical loop?)


Are there any necessary and sufficient conditions on types of generating functions which guarantee the existence/nonexistence of a closed form for the sequence they enumerate? Generating functions based on linear recurrence relations clearly always do (by annihilators), but are there more general statements to be made about other types of OGFs? What about DGFs and others? Does limiting the generating functions we consider to be ones obtained from different varieties of recurrence relations allow more concrete answers to be produced? Also, if there are books, journals, or specific papers on the topic, please link them! This is fascinating stuff.


I'm studying modern physics and have some questions about these three different scattering. In the book and wiki all tells me Raman and Rayleigh scattering are inelastic and elastic collision separately, but what about Compton scattering? Does Compton scattering include this two type of scattering since the picture in the book give me two angle of scattering with one differ from the original angle while one remains unchanged? Or it can't be categorized in any of above since it interact with an "electron"? Hope to know the details, by the way I'm studying modern physics by Serway


Is there a word that describes someone having a false sense of knowing? In other words, one believes he knows X, but X isn't true. Here is an example sentence: However, consent forms give people only a false sense of knowing. The sentence means that people are not given full knowledge or information but they think they are. This is close to being misinformed but not quite.


I'm using tex-live on a Ubuntu machine. I got a customized graphics.cfg file (configuration file for the graphix package) that I'd like to use as default on my system. I've tried to locate the graphics.cfg used on my system: locate graphics.cfg but I got many results: /etc/texmf/tex/latex/config/graphics.cfg /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/latex/latex-graphics-companion/inputs/graphics.cfg /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc-en/latex/latex-graphics-companion/inputs/graphics.cfg /usr/share/texlive-base/graphics.cfg Which file should I substitute with the desired one? Thanks for the help P.s. I know that I might modify the one in my local tree, but I'm writing a tutorial and would like to write a section explaining how to modify it system-wide and user-wide.


I'm a guy and I change my appearance to look like my female counterpart just so that I can physically see someone that could understand and relate with me even from just the mirror. I would wear feminine clothes if I could, but I wouldn't want to wear them always, neither am I gay. I'd probably wear them, look at the mirror then take 'em off afterwards. What am I called?


It means "to write literary works, knowing that they will not pass censorship and be published". I am looking for some English equivalents that can be used to describe not only writing but also doing different things like taking photos for example for oneself and refusing to publish them. Thank you very much in advance Let's just find an equivalent for "doing things for yourself and not caring whether it will be published or not". A good example is Kafka most of whose books were published after his death


I know there are other questions i.e. Do quantum computers manufactured by D-Wave Systems, Inc. work? , What can the D-Wave quantum computer do? , etc. But I can't seem to find my answer. What is getting in the way of determining if D-Wave is a quantum computer? Why can't we just analyze the way they built, and see if it's quantum? Is there a problem with patents getting in the way? Why can we still not tell?


I'm wondering if there are more-commonly-than-not held connotations for terms regarding occupation that would differentiate between one's own personal experience in a field versus the description of the field as a whole. E.g. I am an engineer at company A, this is my job, but engineer is my profession. The example is arbitrary. To me I associate job, occupation, and career with a more personalized representation of employment while profession or vocation are less so. NB: I am trying to model certain relationships in code and want to choose the best names for some objects in the hierarchy so that it is at least somewhat evident by their names what the relationships are. I understand that there may not be any one "right" answer to this question.


Consider a model of the empty unsorted signature. Equivalently, a model of the signature having a single sort, and no function or relation symbols. Intuitively, such a model should be called a "set." However, the emphasis is all wrong. For example, in ZFC everything is a set, but I don't feel comfortable saying that everything in ZFC is a model of the empty signature. Firstly, because its just false. Secondly, because we should only talk about models up to isomorphism, however your average ZFC set is interesting beyond its cardinality; that is, beyond its structure up to isomorphism. We care about more than just the cardinality of your average ZFC set. Is there a good word to mean "a model of the empty signature"?


The depletion region reduces as the forward bias is increased. Does at any point it reach zero or negligible length? Knee voltage of a diode is defined as the minimum amount of forward bias required for the diode to show significant conduction. It denotes the potential barrier created across the depletion region via accumulation of charges, i.e. negative charges on P side, and positive on N side


Needles to say I am a visitor here. I do not belong to the science world;) But I have read both of these things before: Apple falls to the ground because curved spacetime pushes it there (same force as keeps moon in orbit) Apple 'falls' to ground because the ground is rushing up to meet the apple (which is actually suspended in space) because of Earth's acceleration through space. I don't think these can both be true. I'd appreciate any clarification - thank you.


Can you use packages on math.stackexchange? The help associated with the editor does not mention packages, so I am guessing it's not possible. But if it is, how? I am particularly interested in the centernot package at the moment. If there is documentation or a prior question for this, please direct me to it -- I have searched for this answer with no luck. There are responses on package use on tex.stackexchange, but they do not work as-is on stackexchange. Finally, is this a good place to ask questions about TeX usage in stackexchange? When I tried such a question on meta.math.stackexchange, I got scolded and sent here. Well, it was a generic TeX question, and this one is specific to stackexchange. Thanks.


land |land| noun the part of the earth's surface that is not covered by water, as opposed to the sea or the air. Many writers in countless books and various writings use the terms "dry land" to describe earth's surface that is not covered by water. "They walked on dry land." Why, when simply, "land" will suffice according to its definition? Do we call the earth under our oceans, or any body of water, land? If so then I would agree that using "dry land" is not redundant, but by definition it is.


Here are three ways to say the same thing. I wonder if there are particular rules regarding to the position of adverb phrases: Then play those passages over and over again in your memory Or, Then play those passages in your memory over and over again Or, Then play over and over again those passages in your memory I think the last is the worst choice but the first twos seem ok. The first is better because "over and over again" is closer to "play" so it is emphasized. Agreed?


How can we get the mass of an uncharged proton, i.e. how varies the mass of the charged proton if i remove the electric charge? For the isotopic spin theory neutron and proton have the same mass and it is possible to distinguish that particles only for the different values of the third component of the isotopic spin. This is an approximated symmetry because the masses are different and the charges too. In a ideal world we can remove the electric charge from the proton and we get a "uncharged" proton. The question is how the mass changes. You can interpret that question as what it is the contribution to the mass due the charge, not only for proton but for all particles.


In the good ol' days I drew figures with xfig and generated LaTeX source to directly include in my papers. But I now find powerpoint to be a faster drawing tool and sufficient for most of my needs. What's the best way to embed the resulting image in LaTex? I current output to pdf, then include using the graphicx package. But the resulting scaling and positioning trial-and-error session is often extremely frustrating, and the documentation on the package is quite sparse and unhelpful. Is there a better way?


I need to store data. I'd like to store them in Metric units and use a tool to convert them to and from other units that these data points will be displayed in. As the title states, my constraints are Distance, Pressure, and Temperature. Distance I know, but it is added here as an example: I store the data in meters and convert to feet where needed. What are the metrics unit for storing Pressure and Temperature? Further, I am assuming here that metric units would be the most universal. If there is a more universal unit for Distance, Pressure or Temperature, please let me know.


In Texmaker, in the caption environment, why does spell check not work if the figure has a label? This is an example I made to show this 'feature': From the first line, we see that the spell-checker is working as normal. This also follows in the figure environment, but not in the caption environment. I tried playing around with it to see what exactly caused it... turns out it's the presence of a label. We see from the second caption that the spell-check is performed correctly.


Can someone help? "Dave killed Peter." Dave asked Susan, "why was Peter here?" Susan said, "Maybe he would have told you if you hadn't have killed him." Would there have been any difference if she had said "Maybe he would have told you if you hadn't killed him"? According to my understanding, Susan wants to emphasise the fact that Peter would have told Dave why he was here if Dave hadn't killed him first. Right? Meaning, Susan thinks Dave would still kill him anyway, before or after Peter told Dave why he was here.


If I have a rod of some material and submerge one end in hot water then leave the other side exposed to room temperature air. How would I go about calculating the temperature of the end of the rod that is exposed to the open air? It's alright if it requires two or three equations and some problem solving to figure out I'd just like some mathematical way to solve this if there is one


I'm working on a digraph problem in which bidirectional edges need to be treated separately. As such, we could consider them as undirected edges. Clearly, if I replace bidirectional edges with undirected edges I get a ``mixed graph'' (one with directed and undirected edges). But can a mixed graph have bidirectional edges in addition to undirected edges? Can a mixed graph have a directed edge and an undirected edge between two vertices? The Wikipedia definition is not crystal clear on this. A paper, Enumeration of Mixed Graphs indicates bidirectional and parallel mixed edges are disallowed. The definition in this article claims that the ``complete mixed graph'' has a undirected and bidirectional edge between both vertices. What are ``mixed graphs'' typically defined as?


I wonder if there is some advantage in using individuals when defining set theory and if this has something to do with the use of classes. This is essentially because I have seen that some books start by defining the empty set whereas others consider it to be a primitive symbol. In the first case there are only sets in the domain of discourse, but in the second there are also what they call individuals. What is the purpose of using individuals compared to the other alternative? Also, the way I understand individuals is that they are entities at the begining of the hierarchy, at the same level of the empty set, but maybe I'm misundersanting this. Could you guys please help me claryfy this...


On a recent trip the US, someone explained to me that saying "sorry" meant taking responsibility for causing the loss. Thus you should only say sorry if you intended to fix the situation. (And potentially even had implications for insurance and litigation). I'm an Australian - generally when people say "I'm sorry" it means "I can display empathy for your loss and can put myself in your shoes". [implicitly also that no responsibility is taken - nor any effort being made to restore the situation] My question is: Do English speaking subcultures attach different meanings to the phrase "I'm sorry"? (This is different to the other questions relating to the meaning of 'sorry' because it considers the legal and restorative implications as well as the geographic context).


the classic rhombic dodecahedron (RD) can be used to fill space as shown here I know I cannot recreate a bigger RD by stacking RD together because you never have two touching faces on the sames plane. I am wondering if joining the center of stacked RD you would end up with a bigger RD ? I've tried making origami model and it looks like it is not the case.


Besides sports in which an attacker is an offensive player, is there any difference between assailant and attacker? a person who attacks somebody I guess attacker can also be used for animals but not assailant. Is there anything else or are they fully interchangeable when describing a person who physically attacks somebody else? Can both words also be used when talking about psychological attacks, like insulting, bullying, etc?


I've found it in a book and assume it's got to be correct, but I cannot understand why the Past Perfect of I had been offered. Would was offered not have been clearer? I explained that when I was in high school I had been offered a job teaching tennis at a local country club because I had been one of the best junior tennis players in the area


One of the most useful black hole analogies I've seen imagines that space is "flowing" like a river into a black hole, and the point at which it flows in faster than c is the horizon. This analogy leads to the idea that a tachyon could escape from the "c"-based horizon and perhaps penetrate a bit further. Given that the tachyon has finite speed there would presumably be a horizon closer to the singularity that applies to the tachyon. However, could a tachyon device send us information about what's going on beyond the c-horizon? Let's assume tachyons exist and we have a device that can generate an interpretable message transmitted w tachyons (the Apple iTach, if you will).


What would be another way of saying "It'll do more harm than good" but in the context of "it'll do nothing for you?" Here's some context. The common mistake, however, is believing that only lifting weights multiple times a day will get us to where we want to be. This is wrong, and unfortunately, it may even do nothing for you. I'd like to rephrase this to match and compare like "Nothing more than something" but that sounds really stupid.


In Malayalam/Indian, there's a saying "Thala Irikkumbol, Valu-attaruthu!", which literally translates to: When the head is present, tail should not wag. It means that one should not act out of turn in the presence of one's superiors. Consider: Mafia bosses A and B discussing stuff; a low-ranking member M chimes in interrupting them; A puts a bullet between M's eyes saying something-cool-here. I'm not limiting answers to mafia style, though that would be cool. What are other English idioms equivalent to this?


When referring to the time of a particular event, should I refer to the local time or the time zone most relevant to the audience or always include reference to the time zone? It can be further complicated when having to specify Standard or Daylight Saving times. It seems that you would have to reference all times as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) to avoid having to list multiple times.


I am developing a Trading Card Game and I am in need to extract functionality from two of my classes as they are both doing almost the same. it is about the Deck and Graveyard constructs which are visible on the field. The Deck is where the cards are which you can still draw, the Graveyard is where your used cards are. What word could I use to describe both a Deck and a Graveyard, Stack is already taken unfortunately (by the Java language) and I'd personally describe it as a Pile, but not sure if that is the best wording.


Possible Duplicate: Why does the sound pitch increase on every consecutive tick at the bottom of a filled cup of coffee? A colleague suggested this experiment this morning : Get a cup of coffee Spin the coffee in the cup using a spoon Tap the bottom of the cup with the spoon Observations : As the coffee slows down, the sound produced by the tapping gets higher in frequency. I'm very curious about this, does anyone have an explanation ?


I'm translating a course manual but I'm struggling with something. The manual could be read by a man or a woman. In my own language, he or she or it doesn't exist, so I'm not sure how to make my texts easier to read. The student can meet his/her Inner Guide who opens his/her heart chakra. The teacher guides his/her student so he/she can advance more in his/her life. I'm going to open his/her chakra and so he/she can express his/her emotions easier.


I have learn some basic knowledge of Heat in my class, and I got confused when dealing with the change of state. Basically, what the textbook say is that the molecular kinetic energy keeps constant during the change of state and the molecular potential energy increases. However, my problem is, how do the particles manage to change their molecular potential energy without moving faster? How does the energy supplied to that object actually helps it increasing or decreasing it's molecular potential energy? What I want is some sort of "model - like" stuff so I can understand what is going on in micro-view.


I know that in evaporation process highly energetic molecule get latent heat and it changes the phase and rest of water is cooled,but I think water at high temperature is at up and low temperature at the bottom because of high density of water,but how is energy transfered from water at low temperature to high temperature to gain latent heat,how is it possible ?I am so confused?


It sounds like your proposal would make a great feature request for the existing module. I'm unclear why you consider it was not a good idea. Does replacing I'm unclear with it is unclear to me make the sentence more clear? Are there any contexts where I'm unclear would have a different meaning? Is it used in some regions/dialects to mean something different from it is unclear to me?


I just watched the dubbed version of Code Geass anime series, and there's a sentence puzzling me. The actions one takes are answered by consequences waiting at the conclusion. I was wondering whether the usage of the sentence is formal or not. Can action use answer as a verb? I found nothing on the internet about "the actions are answered by..." What does "consequences waiting at the conclusion" mean? Can wait use at as a prep? I'm a non-native speaker of English.


I want to know if dimensional regularization has any issues if the theory has IR divergences or is scale invariant. Does dimensional regularization see "all" kinds of divergences? I mean - what does it exactly mean when one says that power law divergences and IR divergences disappear in the dimensional regularization. So is more regularization needed in general over and above dimensional regularization? Does anything about the divergences get specially constrained if the theory is scale invariant? I have often heard it being said that dimensional regularization "preserves" scale invariance.


It is well known that the family of conics is derived by slicing an infinite double-napped right circular cone, with the specific type of conic depending on the angle of slice. Separately it is also know that these conics may be defined by its focus (or focis, as the case may be) and directrix, from which standard equations are derived. What is not obvious is how these two concept definining the family of conics are to each other. Question: Show that the cone-slicing defintion of conic sections is equivalent to the focus-directrix definition. Indicate where the focus and directrix are located in relation to the double-napped cone. Diagrams would be helpful.


I am working on a sonnet. This pretty much mandates the use of iambic pentameter and therefore requires that I have a good grip on emphasis. However, I'm not exactly sure how to properly research words for emphasis. I was attempting to comprehend Merriam-Webster's Pronunciation Guide, but that just further confused me. Merriam-Webster has a system for indicating the stressing of syllables; almost every page has a set of symbols delimited by backslashes, describing the word's emphasis. I was wondering if anyone experienced in the emphasis and or word pronunciation could help me understand this notation with an example or two.


I remember when staying a few months in the US years ago that I saw some people using the abbreviations below. However, I can't exactly remember in which contexts I encountered them, (whether I saw my teachers using them when writing something on the board, in papers or in personal notes etc.) So my question is: Are those abbreviations below commonly used and in which contexts is it okay to use them (e.g. formal texts, personal notes,... or better only used in personal note taking?) w/o without w/ with b/c because PS: Are there similar abbreviations that are commonly used?


This construction and its variants always sound strange to me. If I was asked to write a sentence with the same meaning, my choice would be: I don't want a robot running the empire. Logically, don't want (...) no robot conveys rather the contrary for me: want a robot. Can someone please clarify the choice? I had just read it in Asimov's Forward the Foundation. Thank you.


When one pours water out of a bottle, it first flows smoothly but then a pressure 'blockage' develops and the pouring becomes interrupted and turbulent, so that the water comes out in splashes. This seems to slow down the flow of water from the bottle. What is the optimal way to pour the water so that it completely empties fastest? Possible strategies: Holding the bottle at a certain angle Wildly shaking the bottle Squeezing the bottle Other... It probably depends on the shape of the opening and/or the bottle itself, but we shall assume this beautiful example of a standard water bottle: CLARIFICATION The question is asking how to pour the water the fastest, so no straws, hole insertion and evaporating lasers allowed...


I don't know exactly how to ask this in a comprehensible way. I am trying to find a solution to my problem which is to find how many sphere of radius r are lying on the boundary (which means that in some way this little sphere intersect the boundary of the big sphere) of a sphere of radius R (with r smaller than R). For example, one simple law could be dividing the surface area of the sphere with radius R with the area of a circle of radius r.


I have an example image here from Modern Physics textbook. I also like the chapter styles (I am thinking I could do them with the memoir document class, but that is for later). Right now, I am trying to figure out how to make the section numbers and titles show up in the margin of the chapter title pages. Also, does anyone think this could work in the book documentclass instead of memoir?


So I am trying to find the relationship between fractals and newton's method, and I am trying to use software to generate the fractals pattern. which software can I use to do that and how? Also i am trying to compare two different types of Newton;s method - the normal one and a new type of newton's method called relax newton's method. The new type maintains a quadratics convergence in most situations, but how can I generate fractals for this new Newton;s method?


I am victim of the known biblatex-biber bug described here which leads to mass spurious missing citations, resolved only by deletion of the biber cache (dozens of files). Previously it was occasional but now it is driving me up the wall - I have to delete the cache on every single compile across multiple projects. Anyone know the status of this bug and the purpose of the cache before I resort to abandoning biber completely.