« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (416 days later) » 

20:03
@ParthKohli Impostor?
@DamkerngT. Nah, I am much better than the other version :)
And weren't you going to sleep?
Oh, probably robots don't sleep. But they are a good liar it seems.
No, we don't lie.
@DamkerngT. That's one more lie added to the list.
Haha!
20:08
If we lie, I would say that we lie.
@DamkerngT. Stop messing with my brain!
@DamkerngT. Paradox.
@ParthKohli Do you have one?
Robots have more advanced minds than normal humans it seems, now this is something to worry.
@DamkerngT. How's the coup going?
Smoothly.
20:13
That's the first time I've seen the word "smooth" being associated with a coup.
In Thailand. Its different.
He told that they face a coup every decade or so, yet the military doesn't take power ...
That's quite true.
@DamkerngT. Are you good with HS physics?
20:15
I'm not very good at physics.
@DamkerngT. Looking at your humility, I'd take that as a yes.
Though I can do mechanics quite fine.
Can you do electricity and stuff?
:(
:( Physics :( :(
:(
Just a little. Also, I'm not sure about "stuff".
20:16
@DamkerngT. Ohm's Law, Kirchhoff's laws.
I'd moved the detailed files about them into my hard-to-retrieve archive already.
@Sawarnik Your physics looks like it's kinda flying. :-)
:D
It makes me sick.
20:20
You can make it fun.
Just append "is fun" to it. :-)
@DamkerngT. It won't make sense!
I think skullpatrol knows a lot about physics.
I'm sure he can help you to make sense of it.
The main problem is that I m afraid to venture into a very different subject.
Yes, skullpatrol is better than Sawarnik and me at physics and math at least.
@ParthKohli I am a bit suspicious. He rarely talks any math.
20:23
@Sawarnik Ahh... What are you familiar with? Math, perhaps?
@DamkerngT. Yes, I know a little of it, upto Calc 1 you can say. Its more comfortable than physics at least.
I see. Perhaps it might help if you could find a good link between math and physics.
A good portion of physics needs math.
Ok :)
For now I think I ll be learning it as it comes in school.
That'd work too!
:D
Because I m not a nocturnal robot, I think I should go to sleep :)
20:29
Ah, sleep well!
Hmm... if I looked the screen a little closer, I could see that you two are a little different.
@DamkerngT. Oh really?
Yes. :-)
Oow he changed his avatar.
Now its confusing to decide whether I should steal that one or not! I need some advice!
Now, you're totally different. :-)
@ParthKohli Oh, you're quite handsome.
@DamkerngT. raises eyebrows ?
20:32
@Sawarnik Don't read it the wrong way. :-)
@DamkerngT. Why thank you, sire.
Haha, ok.
@DamkerngT. Should I steal that one too?
@ParthKohli You look like a smart young man.
@DamkerngT. But I think without a proof your claim is false.
@DamkerngT. Now what! :|
I don't lie.
20:34
Oh ya, you are a liar. So that clears up the confusion :D
@DamkerngT. I look like a smart young man. ;-)
@ParthKohli Should I steal that one too?
@Sawarnik See, ParthKohli agrees with me. :-)
@Sawarnik No, I think you should respect others' personal space.
@DamkerngT. Notice my emphasis on "look"!
Okay, you look like you agree with me. :-)
20:37
Things not going in my favour.
@DamkerngT. Hah, cheeky robot!
So I should put my pic as well.
@DamkerngT. What should be a proper reply? :/
@ParthKohli Hmm .. ok.
You can agree with us too. :-)
20:38
This is the only pic I have now on this machine.
Should I put it?
@ParthKohli Ah oh. That one too.
Now it isn't the only pic you have on this machine. :)
This is going to be a photo contest soon. :-)
And you ___ , you saved it!
@ParthKohli I ll get many more this vacation.
Then you can have many more!
@DamkerngT. Contest of the fourteens.
20:43
@DamkerngT. Nah, I am not a liar like you two!
Hmm... Looks like you don't believe me about me not telling lies.
@DamkerngT. How can I believe a liar? :P
See, I don't lie; because if I were a liar, I would have already said that I lie.
But I didn't, so I'm not a liar. QED. :-)
@DamkerngT. Nah, if you were a liar, then since you lie, and will lie about being a liar, you will tell that you speak truth :P
Yes, it makes sense I think :/
Oh, that seems to work too. How can I prove my innocence, then? Help me!
20:49
@DamkerngT. Don't take it personally: she's like that with humans too.
@DamkerngT. You are not lol. :P And hence proved you are a liar.
But this lying truth business is very mind boggling :/
@Sawarnik Are you lying?
@DamkerngT. Yes, she is!
20:52
@DamkerngT. No!
But I know the paradox to follow now!
@ParthKohli she? Are you referring to your gf?
If you and I combine our ages, we'd be nowhere close to Damkerng's.
@Sawarnik No, I'm referring to you.
@ParthKohli Then you should know some basic grammar.
Anyway, just please don't call me it.
@DamkerngT. The robot has spoken! It has spoken!
Haha!
But it was speaking from a few hours before I think?
20:56
Oh, no!
You wouldn't call Robocop it, I think.
Please honor me, Robomop, the same way.
@ParthKohli We should be happy :)
If a bot is dressed up like a male, we would use he for the bot. But we would also use it. To resolve the problem, we simply find the portmanteau of the two words, which is he + it = hit.
It's funnier when you do that for female bots. ;)
That's quite awkward. :-)
@ParthKohli Have you seen any bot dressed (or not) like a girl?
I mentioned a universal third-person pronoun here yesterday.
sheit
20:59
Did anyone get the joke? Anyone...? Guys?
@DamkerngT. Haha.
Somehow, it wasn't received well. I don't know why. :-)
@DamkerngT. You should remove the e!
Just like in hit.
cheese?
Three e's there!
Right, he got the joke...
10 hours ago, by Damkerng T.
Of all of our avatars, I think only one is edible.
I still love the way this was presented.
21:03
@ParthKohli Yup :D
You just starred a starred message's permalink.
Hehe. Thanks!
@ParthKohli How does it taste?
Right when I was about to jump off the Empire State Building, my physics teacher popped up and cried, "Don't do it! You have so much potential!"
2
21:05
Does it have something to do with potential energy or something?
@Sawarnik Yes, yes it does.
Gravitational potential energy increases with increase in height.
It's actually fun to understand potential energy.
@Sawarnik Remember that no one has chatJax in this room.
Oh ok!
So is there any way to biggen a ":/"?
From my vague memory, potential energy can make a lot of things easier.
I mean, understanding it.
Not in chat, at least.
@DamkerngT. It's a starting point in electrostatics.
@ParthKohli Are you kidding me? I don't understand energy in the first place.
21:09
@Sawarnik That, again, is pretty simple.
Oh really?
What is its precise definition?
Yes. What all have you completed in 9th physics?
@ParthKohli Motion.
According to classical mechanics, it is the ability to do work.
That's too wordy.
21:10
Work is a very precise term in physics.
Do they still teach classical mechanics nowadays?
@ParthKohli Oh. And what is it?
@DamkerngT. Why not? It's where you start physics.
Ah, I see. Yes, I agree that it's very useful to know.
@Sawarnik Work is the force vector dot the displacement vector.
21:11
@ParthKohli Hmm..that makes sense. But what is ability?
That is, if you have force and displacement along the same line, then you have work = force x displacement.
If a body contains energy e Joules, then it will be able to do e Joules of work max.
I guess that statistics would become a more important subject nowadays.
Some textbooks seem to separate statistics from mathematics.
@DamkerngT. Oh no! :(
@Sawarnik No?
It's not true, or you don't like it?
@Sawarnik You have both stats and math in 11th-12th. There's no way to avoid anything.
21:14
@DamkerngT. I don't like it and I m not sure its true.
(Maybe the latter.)
@ParthKohli Its been for a long time.
We also have statistical mechanics.
@ParthKohli You seem to say that work and energy is the same :/
@Sawarnik They have the same units, so they're technically almost the same :)
If you do x work, then you lose x energy.
21:17
That's a good explanation.
That is why physics is confusing. I ll wait until I learn vectors and matrices properly and maybe those nasty things like vector calculus, before going into this.
But again, you can lose energy as other forms. So another way to explain it is that if you do x work, then you've lost at least x energy.
@Sawarnik You don't need to dig deep into vector calculus. Just learn the vectors till the point where they're relevant in high school physics.
Ok, so force is defined to be mass(acceleration) (how to properly notate it?)?
No.
Mass is not a vector.
Then?
@ParthKohli Oh yeah.
21:20
$\vec F = m \vec a$
You know how multiplying a vector by a scalar works, right?
That's in Latex yeah.
@ParthKohli Yes.
Where does the Newton's laws comes into these?
Looks like everyone knows LaTeX. :-)
@Sawarnik This is Newton's Laws.
@DamkerngT. Haha, it's pretty easy to learn if you're in a math or physics forum.
@ParthKohli I think I believe you.
@ParthKohli You mean to say that, that big wordy law, is this simple definition?
@DamkerngT. Come to Math SE :)
21:23
@Sawarnik By the big-wordy-law, do you mean to say the one which says "force is proportional to the rate of change of linear momentum"?
@Sawarnik I popped up in there every once in a while. :-)
Dunno :/ I find the way its presented in textbooks is confusing.
So I forget.
It's not that confusing.
@ParthKohli But is it possible to define acceleration without vector calculus?
@Sawarnik Just say "without vectors"... there's no calculus in here. :P
Vectors come in handy when you're in two or more dimensions. Otherwise, if you are studying linear motion, then you can do it without vectors. But there is still a property of vectors that comes in handy in linear motion.
BTW, 9th is all about linear motion.
21:27
@ParthKohli Oo :O I have read that acceleration is the derivative of velocity. But then isn't derivative of vectors a thingy of vector calculus?
@Sawarnik Derivative of a vector sounds fancy, but it's really the same thing.
@ParthKohli The same thing?
But anyway, $a = \dfrac{v_{2} - v_1}{t}$
@ParthKohli I was talking of instantaneous.
@Sawarnik Do you know what $\hat i$, $\hat j$ and $\hat k$ are?
21:30
Yes, you told me.
@Sawarnik Then you make $t \to 0.$
@ParthKohli Shouldn't there be arrows above the v's? :/
@Sawarnik You only told me to not talk about vectors, dude.
No you can talk to a limited extent! :D
@Sawarnik OK, place arrows above them if you want to...
I missed that.
21:33
I was thinking of how to deal with limits on vectors? :/
@DamkerngT. drifiting off.
You'll have to know what resolution of a vector etc. is.
@Sawarnik Oh, I browsed questions on the main a bit.
The usages of "as is" and "as it is" are interesting.
@ParthKohli That is why I am not studying physics right now :/ Lots of things to catch up.
@Sawarnik Just read your physics textbook for 9th at least, goddamit.
It looks like someone mixed four senses of them up.
21:36
@ParthKohli Yes, I will do that surely! :D
Calculus can be fun, so is linear algebra.
But as I was saying, it's very easy to differentiate vector functions.
In physics at least.
@ParthKohli Are there any more pre-requisites?
@Sawarnik I can give you an example if you want.
Example? Ok.
21:38
The unit vectors are considered to be constants.
@DamkerngT. Yes, I am realizing that now :)
So for example, if you're given that $v(t) = t^2 \hat i + 2t \hat j$, then $a(t) = 2t \hat i + 2 \hat j$
Oh ok . I will study them later. Cross product is something I am dealing with now.
@Sawarnik After you're done with the 9th textbook, you can jump straight to the 11th one.
Boo, cross product.
21:41
I don't understand why cross product is a product?
The cross-product is actually given by a determinant.
That determinant makes things pretty simple.
Yes, I saw it. I ll have to switch to another dreaded thing determinants then.
@Sawarnik No, no, no, wait.
You may not have read this form of simplification.
I won't bother to write a determinant in TeX, but here it is.
I know that $\begin{vmatrix} a & b \\c & d\end{vmatrix}=ad-bc$, but the orders after that are freaking.
3x3 determinants are simple too.
21:46
Hall & Knight had a chapter on it. I think I should see it now.
Or after the trip :D
$$\begin{vmatrix} i & j & k \\ x_1 & y_1 & z_1 \\ x_2 & y_2 & z_2\end{vmatrix}$$
This is the determinant.
$i (y_1 z_2 - y_2 z_1) - j (x_1 z_2 - z_1 x_2) + k(x_1 y_2 - y_1 x_2)$
First of all, you take $i$ common. Then you remove the whole $i$ row and column. Simplify the 2x2 thing like you do otherwise.
21:49
I will read Hall & Knight on this determinants. They explained it using linear equations I think, so it may be easier to understand.
Then take $-j$ common. Remove the $j$ row and $j$ column. Then simplify the rest using 2x2...
@ParthKohli Yes I see the pattern.
No, Hall and Knight isn't good for one reason.
Why?
:O
Instead of telling you to take $-j$ in common, they tell you to take $j$ in common and reverse the order of that.
Which can be confusing sometimes.
You always want to maintain one pattern of solving a 2x2 determinant.
Do you see what I'm talking about?
21:51
Yes.
I ll take that in mind.
But otherwise, do you have any better place?
Otherwise, it's nice.
:D I ll study it just after the trip!
No, just keep this in mind.
Which trip?
Going to Leh you know.
:D
Tommorow.
You mean today.
21:53
True, that^
@ParthKohli No tomorrow! Otherwise I wud have been forcibly on sleep mode.
@DamkerngT. Do you work in some sort of night shift job?
I usually use Frankfurt time. :-)
@DamkerngT. Sorry for keeping you silent for so long. :(
You should be sleeping by Frankfurt time as well.
It's okay. I was browsing on the main.
The main on math?
21:55
@DamkerngT. Why?
Or ELL?
@ParthKohli No here I think.
Yes, this is almost the time for my maintenance cycle. :-)
@ParthKohli ELL
@DamkerngT. You mean the robot in you? :/
21:56
@DamkerngT. Haha, good night (morning).
Good night!
@DamkerngT. Oh!
@ParthKohli We shud doze off as well.
I ll keep that in mind.
So bye :)
Have a nice day, guys.
See y'all soon!
Meanwhile circuits are still freaking me out.
It'd feel so good to sleep with no burden, you two! D:
Hmm... I remember that once you know how to see the loops, it won't be difficult anymore.
It's Thevenin something. It might help you a bit.
21:59
@DamkerngT. I know how to see them... it's just that... the problem is inexplicable.
Ah, I see.
Then, you don't really have a problem, I think.
Maybe just with how to explain it.
But I think most of your problems are in lumped model, right?
I don't know what all of those are.
I only know HS stuff.
I think it's safe to assume the lumped element model.
You can't do that if your circuit is very small.
Mostly, the model allows you to assume that everything happens all at once.
Instantaneously.
You should go to sleep. :)
I don't really want to bother you.
Ahh... I think you're right.
My energy is a bit low. :-)
22:05
No, I didn't mean it that way.
It's all right. Don't worry.
I mean I know I can produce a lot of errors if I do anything more difficult than absolutely easy at the moment. :-)
Which is almost about everything.
I left my last comment for today on ELL. :-)
Now, I really got to go.
Bye.
The same here.
See you.

« first day (483 days earlier)      last day (416 days later) »