« first day (2425 days earlier)      last day (2511 days later) » 

4:00 PM
@0celo7 add garlic fried in butter to it. Plain pasta with butter, garlic and some black pepper is really nice. Add some finely chopped fresh chillis if you want some extra bite.
 
@JohnRennie A garlic cream sauce does sound good. I will research
@JohnRennie Oh, I'm including the pound+ of sauce in there
 
Yesterday's lunch was pasta with chopped Polish sausage, butter, tomato and yes garlic. Very nice too.
 
@JohnRennie to appease you I will make garlic chicken tonight
 
Sid
Garlic paste or sauce is much better than raw or cooked garlic.
 
Finding the Boltzmann distribution with EM in it isn't helped by the fact that the full name is the Boltmann-Maxwell distribution
 
4:07 PM
@0celo7 If I hadn't just eaten 11 parathas the thought of garlic chicken would make me hungry
 
Sid
... 11 parathas?
:O
 
Shrug :-)
 
@Sid I am going to make a sauce
I looked up a recipe
 
@Sid They were shop bought ones and they are quite thin. More like chapatis really.
 
Sid
@0celo7 Sounds good. and hopefully for you, they would be tasty..
@JohnRennie I.. didn't actually know that Parathas are available in UK. I thought they were a regional thing..
 
4:10 PM
UK $\cong$ India
 
@Sid these days the choice of food in the UK is very good. There are lots of firms run by Indians (various states) producing their regional food for the UK market
 
@JohnRennie I have been having a lot of success with just grilled chicken with no BS
 
I think you mean India $\subset$ UK
 
Used to be.
 
Sid
4:12 PM
@0celo7 UK and India are about as far apart culturally as they are geographically
 
@Sid Well, India was a British colony. There's certainly some cultural traits we (well, perhaps not all of India, but the capitals) inherited from the Brtis, but I am not sure of the other direction.
 
@Sid so?
 
Sid
Which means they are surely not congruent. :)
 
@JohnRennie do I need a garlic crusher?
@Sid that does not mean "congruent"
@JohnRennie not having parent's stuff is hard
 
Sid
Really? I thought I knew Mathjax stuff..
 
4:15 PM
@Sid it means isomorphism
 
Sid
Isn't that same as congruent? Or am I terribly mistaken?
 
@Sid I don't know what congruent means
 
Congruent means of the same size
 
isometric objects in R^n
 
4:17 PM
WTF
5
Q: Were 25% of newly-infected HIV-positive gay men actively seeking infection in 2003?

myktinRense quotes a 2003 Drudge Report article, that previewed an apparent Rolling Stone magazine article titled "Bug Chasers: The Men Who Secretly Long To Be HIV+." The men who want the virus are called 'bug chasers' [...] "At least twenty-five percent of all newly infected gay men fall into...

 
the globe is not $\Bbb R^n$
OR IS IT
I am actually flat earth agnostic
 
Well it can be taken as locally flat ...
 
I have 0 (zero) evidence that the Earth is not flat
 
well yes, but that's true of all manifolds
@0celo7 Never took a plane?
 
Ok, physicists need to stop saying "locally flat"
 
4:19 PM
Or got on top of a very tall building
 
Sid
OF course the Earth is flat. I mean, how hard is it to understand that we are all living on a giant pancake
 
it's a technical term
@Slereah you can't see the curvature of the Earth from a very tall building
@Slereah I have, but do what?
Cruising altitude is not high enough to see the curvature
 
Look out the window, see the horizon move?
 
@Slereah atmospheric effects
but it moves so slowly anyway
 
I mean the horizon business doesn't guarantee sphericality, but it means that it's not flat at least
 
4:20 PM
and plane windows could be bulged as to give the effect of a fisheye lens
 
Open the window then
 
They don't let you open plane windows. Wonder why.
 
Not conclusive though.
 
@TheDarkSide That's a fisheye lens
I mean come on
 
You can do like erathosthene
Measure shadows at noon in Athen
then travel for a few months south
And measure the shadow there as well
 
4:22 PM
Ok, so we take our evidence that the Earth is round from Erathosthenes?
Seriously?
 
I think the Greeks guessed theatricality by checking out the shadow of Earth on the moon on an Eclipse.
 
Oh dear Lord. So now, we have to prove that the Earth is curved.
again.
 
sphericality damnit
autocorrect
 
@0celo7 He was the first to check it, yes
 
@Slereah I know he was
 
4:23 PM
Although there have been many other experiments in between
 
But there are explanations for his experiment that avoid a spherical topology.
 
Sure but this was to disprove a flat earth
For which this works
The model of the world prior to this was
 
What?
 
Flat landmass on a giant ocean
 
You are assuming that light goes in a straight line.
 
4:23 PM
With a spherical sky
 
Why would you make that assumption?
 
@0celo7 That's actually an old argument against curved space
Even before relativity existed
 
The prroblem with round Earth is that there are so many assumptions that are absolutely ridiculous
 
I think it was... Poincaré who came up with it?
 
You have not proved that light always goes in a straight line
 
4:25 PM
He said that assuming a curved space could be done away simply by assuming that light does not go in a straight line instead
 
Well, that's Einstein's old argument.
 
Einstein and the evidence
 
If light does not go in a straight line, might as well assume curvature and then it does go in a "straight" line.
 
That is also by the way a big part of Reichenbach's book
 
And we know it doesn't go in a "straight" straight line...so curvature.
 
4:25 PM
The definition of a straight line
 
How does one even define a straight line
 
Well that is the issue
You have to make assumptions as to how you measure something
 
I guess it's like porn
 
Because you can't guarantee that the process of measuring a line with a ruler, for instance, guarantees a straight line
Same with congruence
 
The ruler might be crooked
 
4:27 PM
In the end the definition of "straight line" is intrinsically linked to the process by which you measure it
And you just have to put it in your pipe and smoke it if you don't like it
Of course that means you can redefine all that in a different way
Which is basically what Pauli Fierz GR does
All flat space but the gravitational field curves the path of light
 
Come on @0celo7 - start trashing this out one by one.
 
Or string theory, I suppose
since it is also on a fixed background
 
@TheDarkSide Look, my basic argument will be that I have not verified anything in that article myself. Pictures are worthless nowadays.
I have no reason to believe that the Earth is round other than hearsay.
Fake news.
 
do some amateur astronomy mb
I did some of it back in the days
 
In dot product of vectors through components we only get a magnitude because $ \hat i. \cap i=1$(sameforjandk)icap.icap so how is that possible that we ain't getting any direction?
 
4:32 PM
what
 
@Abcd cross product gives a vector
what are you talking about
 
@0celo7 OK. I get it now.
 
Sorry for the poor formatting. I am trying to edit
 
Have you seen an electron @0celo7?
 
@TheDarkSide That's why I said I'm agnostic.
I have no reason to believe the Earth is round or flat.
@TheDarkSide No.
 
4:33 PM
So, do you believe in Chemistry?
:P
 
Some of it.
 
Guys please help.
If you didn't understand the question I can explain.
 
@Abcd it's hard to know what you are getting at
 
@Abcd your question is unintelligible
 
@JohnRennie Alright. See: There's a method of finding dot product through the orthogonal components, am I right?
 
4:36 PM
@0celo7 Hey, what happened to agnosticism there, pal?
 
@Abcd the dot product rule you're used to is a bit of a simplification.
 
Now when we follow this method, we arrive at an answer which has no direction in terms of i, j or k.
How is this possible @JohnRennie?
 
The dot product is really $g_{ab}x^a x^b$ where $g$ is the metric tensor.
But in flat 3D Euclidean space this simplifies to give the rule we all get taught at school for the dot product.
The dot product is a scalar, or alternatively a rank zero tensor.
 
@JohnRennie Okay. Understood. Thanks.
 
I think you just have to accept that it is a scalar unless you want to go into exactly what it is in more depth than is really justified at school level maths.
@Abcd: try calculating the dot product in polar coordinate form and you'll quickly discover it's more complicated than you thought.
 
4:42 PM
@JohnRennie - How will frozen garlic help you in a vampire apocalypse? #ACuriousDarkSide
 
@TheDarkSide I have verified some of it myself
but I have no reason to believe in atoms, for instance
 
@0celo7 bwahahaha ...
@0celo7 BWAHAHAHA ....
 
@TheDarkSide you defrost it, fry it with butter and fresh chilli, toss with pasta cooked al dente then eat it. Does it work? Who cares :-)
 
@JohnRennie And eventually all of that gets sucked up by a vampire ...
 
@TheDarkSide vampires don't like the taste of physicist and garlic
 
4:46 PM
@JohnRennie especially when they are spewing GR ??
So, that's basically conceding that garlic tastes yuck
 
@TheDarkSide iff you're a vampire
 
Sid
You are a vampire if garlic doesn't taste yuck to you.
 
@JohnRennie :P
 
Right I'm off to (a) slump into my armchair (b) read this weeks New Scientist and (c) drink a cold beer
 
@JohnRennie (d) read Wald
 
5:00 PM
Where does $\hati - j^$ lie? According to me it should be in 4th Quadrant but my book says its in 3rd Quadrant.
How do I make the cap symbol :(?
 
$\cap$
 
\cap
 
wot
 
@Abcd $\cap$
 
@heather I want the vector cap symbol
 
5:01 PM
why do you need a cap for liner algebra
 
$\hat$
 
@Abcd 3rd
 
@Abcd oh, $\hat{}, i think
$\hat{i}$
yep.
 
$\widehat{\mathfrak{Hello}}$
 
Where does $\hat{i} - \hat{j}$ lie? According to me it should be in 4th Quadrant but my book says its in 3rd Quadrant.
 
5:02 PM
$\mathfrak H$ is an underrated character
@Abcd I already told you
 
@heather thanks
 
i think I've seen it used
 
it's generally called a "hat", btw, not a cap, which can instead refer to an intersection in set theory @Abcd =)
 
To express... Hilbert spaces?
 
@0celo7 Can you explain why?
 
5:03 PM
so we'd say "i-hat" or "j-hat".
 
@Abcd draw a picture
 
@0celo7 Done
Labelled i hat and j hat.
 
@heather or a product in singular homology
 
What next?
 
@Abcd what does $i+(-j)$ look like
 
5:04 PM
@0celo7 It looks like a diagonal in the 4th Quadrant
 
yes, so move the base of the vector to the origin
now it points in the 3rd
 
@0celo7 I didn't get you.
Anyone?
 
Criticize: Dirac spinors are irreducible spin representations of the extended Lorentz group
 
@Abcd It should be on the 4th quadrant, that must be a typo or some weird def'n.
 
@JaimeGallego @0celo7 said it should be in the 3rd :(
 
5:11 PM
I don't understand his argument either.
 
Someone please help.
@JaimeGallego Same here.
 
Maybe he's messing with you
 
The result is (1,-1), which is clearly in the 4th quadrant
I don't know what you two are on about
 
8 mins ago, by 0celo7
now it points in the 3rd
 
@JaimeGallego ???
 
5:14 PM
@0celo7 Why did you say this?
 
@Abcd I don't know how to add vectors?
 
What's happening?
Conclusion: It's in 4th Quadrant. End of story. Thanks.
 
the left panel is kind of random
it's the definition of a smooth manifold and then Clifford algebra?
 
@JaimeGallego is that for me?
@JaimeGallego Might be true though
 
5:19 PM
@Abcd Nope
That's for the topologer
 
Maybe it's about the Clifford bundle
 
and the picture seems to be about planetary orbits or Frenet-Seret geometry
 
Putting spinors on manifolds in cartoon form, nice
Also the circular drawing indicates they are also compactifying dimensions ala string theory :p
 
5:33 PM
In the determinant shouldn't there be -1 instead of 1?
 
looks like it
what kind of crappy book is this?
 
I apologise for asking apparently silly stuff but I am new to this topic so please please bear with me.
@0celo7 I know. Too many errors in the so called "solved examples"
 
5:48 PM
@JohnRennie I need to talk about PCs
 
@0celo7 what's up?
 
@JohnRennie I woke up with the crazy idea to build a PC
I need to see how much it will cost (approx) before I start doing specific research
 
For gaming?
 
That would be the primary goal
but I definitely don't need overpriced gaming shit
I don't care about fancy lights and whatnot
 
Didn't we talk about this before?
 
5:52 PM
@Abcd the $B$ in the problem has a minus sign, but in both parts of the solution it has a $+1$, so the $B$ in the problem is likely stated incorrectly.
 
As I recall my suggestion was to buy a second hand Dell and bung in a mofo video card.
 
@JohnRennie Mhm. I need help with specifics. There are probably mobo compatibility issues
and the size of the case, PSU big enough for a mofo card
 
The size of the case may be an issue, but I doubt there will be compatibility issues and the Dell PSUs are generally pretty powerful.
 
@JohnRennie Is future proofing the GPU a good idea?
 
Unless you're going for the ultimate gaming machine I suspect it's a lot simpler than you think.
 
5:56 PM
"Ultimate gaming machine" sounds scary expensive.
But a GTX 1080 Ti is $720
Eek
 
@0celo7 I doubt you can. Things move so fast in the gaming world that future proofing is impossible.
 
@JohnRennie Hmm.
Also, I only want 1080p. I might not need that huge of a GPU for that
 
$720 - Jesus!
If you pick the video card you want I can suggest a pc for it to go in.
 

« first day (2425 days earlier)      last day (2511 days later) »