« first day (4627 days earlier)      last day (599 days later) » 
01:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

21:08
@Amit It is enshrined in Java standard itself, so there can be no fix.
Is @chemistry==@123??? 🤣
Basically every other programming language obeys IEEE754 because the guys who standardised IEEE754 are not just geniuses, but angels.
Interesting, never had a brush with all that
I know this stuff gives rise to some funky performance improvement tricks (when you need them)
kids, just don't do floating point math
Example note the explicit comments in the code lulz
@ACuriousMind I am usually happy to avoid it
21:14
@Amit No, but @chemistry is an alt of another guy. You can tell that they are different here because they ask in different styles, and about different domains.
Both used -> instead of $\rightarrow$ but yeah that is hardly conclusive
@Amit They are from very different countries.
👍🏻👍🏻
How can you tell?!
Both revealed it to meow a while back.
So yours is also a reincarnated account?
21:19
what do you mean?
Because yew (you form of meow) are only 2 months old
I mean when you say a while back it implies on a previous account?
Myow account is 2 months old on P.SE; > decade back, this account was on LaTeX.SE and that's about it?
No, a while back means within this 2 months.
Ah okay 👍🏻👍🏻
@chem is that georgi dagidze guy
I cant find that account now, because I cannot remember how to spell his name
No matter, I take yew word
Cat's honor
21:23
It is particularly annoying because all these peeps delete questions that are voted down, and that means that links, virtual and mental, are broken
No attempt is made to understand how to improve.
Mhmm but also questions with negative votes w/o answers get auto deleted. And if there are upvoted answers I think the OP may not even be able to delete...
Yeah it's not unlikely some of what you saw was roomba'd
Lol precisely
21:29
Note that asking a lot of negatively-scored questions and deleting them will get you automatically question-blocked faster than leaving the questions up, see e.g. physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/10165/50583
I know that. Again, if they were even interested in learning how to ask questions properly and earn some rep, they would have learnt that long ago, rather than create a bunch of accounts.
If you think a user is creating multiple accounts to circumvent our quality measures, feel free to raise a custom mod flag on one of their posts
I don't see the point for this one; he is creating multiple accounts to allow him to post questions, but he is not spamming the site, on purpose or not.
@ACuriousMind Isn't there some auto alert system that notifies you when the same IP posts a new question while having a blocked account?
Not necessarily relying only on IP...
@Amit That cannot work. The whole of my country gets just 2 IP addresses to share between millions of us. There are plenty of sites that permaban our entire country.
21:35
That's crazy
But it's also possible to just warn based on cookies, browser version, etc. Public stuff the site knows
@Amit We have systems in place but just sharing an IP is not forbidden or evidence of wrongdoing (e.g. plenty of users post from university networks and hence share IP without being the same person)
Yes it can't be conclusive, only as a notification
@nickbros123 I'm convinced T C Choy is the correct book for you. Chapter 1 footnote 3: Although the empirical successes in condensed matter physics attest to Minkowski's formulation of the macroscopic Maxwell equations (Jackson1975,Kong1990), this failure of Lorentz's scheme indicates that an adequate microscopic foundation for the macroscopic Maxwell's equations is still presently lacking.
footnote 2: In fact there are difficulties here, as it can be shown, via a suitable choice of gauge, that the D and H fields are redundant; thereby questioning the physical content of Lorentz's averaging procedure (Yan1995)
i.e. this is totally still a source of headaches and the entire theory is fundamentally broken, still awaiting fixing.
22:17
is th edeifnition of a stiefel manifold a convention?
the definition here differs from wikipedia it seems
@SillyGoose where's the difference?
hm well i guess maybe im misunderstanding the isomorphism. because i am thinking that $\text{St}_{n-1}(\mathbb{C}^n) \cong SU(n)$ and expecting $s \in \text{St}_{n-1}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ to be a unitary matrix but i guess that is flawed logic. all it means is there is some mapping which sends $s \mapsto U$ where $U \in SU(n)$?
what isomorphism
the isomorphism between $\text{St}_{n-1}(\mathbb{C}^n)$ and $SU(n)$
mighty morphin power rangers!
22:33
@SillyGoose just because there's an isomorphism doesn't mean it has to be obvious from the definition
I see okay i see that the definitions agree btwn wikipedia and that documentation
But there is some isomorphism between n x (n-1) unitary matrices and n x n special unitary matrices
@SillyGoose The Wikipedia article already explains how that works via stabilizers, no?
$\mathrm{SU}(n)$ has a natural action on $k$-frames, and the stabilizer of each $k$-frame is $\mathrm{SU}(n-k)$
when $k= n-1$, that stabilizer is just $\mathrm{SU}(1) = 1$, so you get $\mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{SU}(1) \cong \mathrm{SU}(n)$.
23:07
$$\begin{pmatrix} v^\dagger \\ U \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} v & U^\dagger \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}v^\dagger v & v^\dagger U^\dagger \\ U v & UU^\dagger\end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{1}_n,$$
so
$v^\dagger v = 1$ and $Uv = 0$ and $U\in\mathrm{U}(n-1)$. We get a map from this to $\mathrm{SU}(n)$ by $(v,U)\mapsto \begin{pmatrix} \mathrm{det}(U)^{-1} & 0 \\ 0 & U \end{pmatrix}$ in a basis where $v$ is the first basis vector.
01:00 - 21:0021:00 - 00:00

« first day (4627 days earlier)      last day (599 days later) »