The output of the previous time-step does not show this
And, strangely, the expected run-time of the simulation jumps from about 2 hours just before 10 to about 14 hours immediately after output 10 (and over the next 20 $dt$'s, jumps to 8.8 days)
@ACuriousMind Hah, I thought for a second that what you said was starred 99 times
Guys, in the context of general topological spaces, an isomorphism is defined as a bijective bicontinuous function. But in the context of Hilbert spaces/QM, one says two spaces are isomorphic iff there is a map that preserves the inner product between the two. Is it obvious that this is the same thing?
@Danu Is isn't (in the sense that not every top. space iso is an Hilbert space iso)...and it is: An isomorphism is an invertible morphism of a category. In the category of topological spaces, morphisms are continuous maps. In the category of Hilbert spaces, morphisms are isometries (or sometimes, linear maps)
@Danu Not really, when we adopt the viewpoint that, in the context given, morphisms are those maps that preserve the structures that interest us, and that isomorphisms are those of these that are invertible
Is wave interference the only way to explain the fringe pattern phenomena. What if it could be completely explained without waves or duality. My paper https://www.dropbox.com/s/lu5irtlxxe4hpis/Single%20Edge%20Certainty.docx?dl=0
explains how any single edge, slit or multiple slit fringe pattern...
so I'm not saying there was anything wrong with closing it as non-mainstream, but it is basically an advertisement that doesn't ask a legitimate question.
actually I'm not sure I agree... I put up an answer recently to a question that happens to be the topic of a chapter of my MSc thesis, so I included that as part of it and linked... that's equally self promoting, should it also be flagged spam?
I guess it's an answer rather than a question, but there is a similarity
@Kyle just being self-promotion isn't enough to qualify for the spam flag. It has to be promotional and have no value
i.e. if it's the sort of thing that should be deleted anyway (for not answering the question, or for not being a question), but it also happens to promote the poster's own product/website/etc., then it probably qualifies for the spam flag
my experience from random googling encounters with physicsforums has been that it's got quite a lot of wrong/gibberish info to wade through before you get to anything that makes sense, and only occasionally do people seem to point out how wrong some of the content is
@Kyle well, it suffers from the problem that affects all traditional forums (fora), which is that you have to follow a potentially long thread of posts to find the answer
I think if PF had a way of sorting posts based on how well they address the original question, it would look a lot more like Physics SE in terms of quality
(well, maybe if you exclude the homework forums :-P)
@DavidZ do you think this is a good idea of mine, or bad? More generally, do you think it's important to try to get questions out of the 'unanswered' tab if they've been answered in the comments?
Of course, this issue is particularly relevant for highly upvoted questions such as this one
@Danu it's definitely good for the health of the site
So that's certainly something I would encourage people to do if they feel like it
By the way, if you write an answer based on someone else's comments, you're not obligated to make it CW. If they wanted the reputation they should have posted an answer in the first place, not a comment.
You don't have to prominently advertise at the top that the answer was based on someone else's comments, either. I'm not saying it's bad to do so, but all you have to do is satisfy our normal plagiarism policy, which is to mention where your ideas came from. Do consider how it will look when the comments are deleted.
@Danu eh, you'll get there, way faster than me too, I need to wait around for decent astro/astrophys/cosmology questions to come around to get any rep, I've been 2 votes away from bronze astrophysics badge for weeks :(
@Kyle probably because I've been spending ridiculous amounts of time on this website, to the point where I'm bored enough to answer questions that actually don't inspire me ;)