« first day (1764 days earlier)      last day (2106 days later) » 
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

12:08 AM
46 of our 100 longest answers are his.
12:40 AM
[ SmokeDetector ] Offensive body detected: What does the phrase “You're out of your element” mean? by overmann on english.stackexchange.com
1 hour later…
2:04 AM
@crl I know. I was indulging in levity.
2 hours later…
4:32 AM
Hi @rogermue
4:50 AM
Hi, just looking and listening. I'm not yet used to this chat room.
It's pretty quite around here at this time.
Don't understand pretty quite ... ah sorry, you mean pretty quiet. Yeas, it is. I see.
I've seldom read your name, Rigor. Are yo American?
Too quiet. I'm leaving. Bye, Rigor.
Later pal :-)
Sorry about the typo: quite quiet.
4 hours later…
9:06 AM
@Robusto stuff and nonsense. Why would it bring RegDwight in here yesterday? It clearly says he will save your life tonight. Yesterday, you could only expect the Beatles.
@tchrist length does not matter.
Check out that other query, most upvotes per character. Now that is efficiency.
Hm, turns out I'm on par with Barrie. Whodathunk.
And now for some Russian architecture of the day @Cerberus:
2 hours later…
10:52 AM
@RegDwigнt That's loser talk.
@RegDwigнt Hey, who says Russkis don't have safety features on their playground equipment?
11:18 AM
Looks like Google is into editorializing on their feed page. (Actual clip from page, no Photoshop.)
The National Enquirer has moved to the internet :(
I believe you mean "Enquirer" . . .
@tchrist given a file, what's a simple way to see the unicode characters in it? I passed it through od -c and got number codes, is there a simple trick to get the unicode names instead?
Never mind, cobbled something up.
11:29 AM
Usually people say "cobbled something together."
@skillpatrol : to make or put together roughly or hastily —often used with together or up <cobble together an agreement> <cobble up a temporary solution>
But "up" is not wrong.
I rest my case.
@RegDwigнt Very efficient. Such a sturdy fence will stop children in mid slide.
11:30 AM
Might be more British but both cobble smt up and cobble smt together sound fine to me.
@terdon interesting...thanks
@Robusto Hilarious...but who is the ape, Obama or the Republicans? Or Fiorina?
@terdon Yes. My point was only that I hear the latter more often.
@Cerberus Ask Google.
Google says no.
^ Little Britain joke
^dumb joke
lmg "lmgtfy" fy
^dumber joke
lmg "lmg 'lmgtfy' fy" fy
^dumbest joke
11:38 AM
How about the 4th power?
no known solution
How sad.
No brackets?
I prefer quotation marks
for words
How about French quotation marks?
« »
too much work
11:41 AM
@Cerberus I believe you mean Greek.
Hmm. Did ancient Greek have quotes?
Err that's what I meant, Greek.
And were they those?
Ah. OK
So modern Greek likely took them from the French then.
@terdon They only spoke their own words.
@terdon Or we all took them from Mediaeval traditions.
Still, it's strange that some languages have << >> and some have ""
Stranger than other split conventions?
11:44 AM
Did Latin have quotes?
Joke marks?
@terdon Nope.
Classical Latin had little punctuation.
Like classical Greek.
how dd it distinguish between use and mention?
or were all words useful?
11:53 AM
So when did quotes appear?
> All words are useful, but some words are more useful than others.
four words good, two words bad
and what about spoken quotations?
nobody said anything worth quoting :P
or maybe everything had already been said, so quoting was redundant
either someone had said it before or you're quoting yourself from the present
That didn't stop people like Cicero and Cato from talking.
>Experientia docet stultos
12:03 PM
@MattE.Эллен Context.
> Musa acuminata dulce fructum
False advertising: "Latin quotation marks"
If you remove q. marks from an English text, you will still be able to get almost all of it.
@Cerberus I suppose. I'll stick to italics, though
You might need to add a few "she said:"s and "yes, Socrates, that is correct"s.
As you wish!
Now I must run.
12:05 PM
later pal
[ SmokeDetector ] Bad keyword in title: Packers and Movers Chennai by Kanika Jaiswal on english.stackexchange.com
@smci: I'm not a New Yorker, just someone who observes and reflects. Your mileage may vary. — Robusto 1 min ago
Question for science: if we can see light from the Big Bang, wouldn't that mean that we somehow traveled faster than light at some point?
12:26 PM
@Robusto What? No.
We can't see light from the Big Bang anyways. Also, you're falling into the trap of thinking the Big Bang was located somewhere in space. It wasn't.
It was a moment in time.
A: Did the Big Bang happen at a point?

John RennieThe simple answer is that no, the Big Bang did not happen at a point. Instead it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. Consequences of this include: The universe doesn't have a centre: the Big Bang didn't happen at a point so there is no central point in the inverse that it is e...

Answer from science^
@Danu OK, but if the universe was and still is infinite, how do you account for prior and continuing inflation? ∞ + ∞ = ∞, right?
I believe the idea is that it was not infinite before the BB. That said, you know perfectly well that there are larger and smaller infinities, in a sense.
@Robusto That sentence does not make much sense.
@terdon Inflationary theory refrains from making any predictions/statements about the earliest moments of time. The theory concerns what happens at about $t=10^{-34}$ seconds after the Big Bang.
@Danu Your sentence does not provide much enlightenment, if any.
12:38 PM
@Robusto That's also true. In any case, accelerated expansion of the universe is in no way at tension with the infinitude of the universe.
It's all a lot clearer when put in to the mathematical language that physicists typically use to discuss this.
Yeah, but that one's hard for laymen to get.
> The total size of the universe is then 0×∞, which is undefined. You probably think this doesn't make sense, and actually most physicists agree with you.
Is that the kind of "not making sense" you were talking about?
@Robusto Who said that? That is pretty much total nonsense, AFAIK.
@Danu It's from the same fucking link you posted.
Did you not read it before linking it here?
@Robusto Nope.
That's not very good. I'll bring it up with John.
12:40 PM
@Robusto that refers to the size of the universe at the moment of the BB, not now.
The sentence is misleading at best. I think what he was trying to get at is that physicists currently are not sure what happens at the earliest moments in time, because classical relativity does not really help in this regime.
> So at the Big Bang we have the very odd situation where the spacing between every point in the universe is zero, but the universe is still infinite. The total size of the universe is then 0×∞, which is undefined. You probably think this doesn't make sense, and actually most physicists agree with you. The Big Bang is a singularity, and most of us don't think singularities actually occur in the real universe.
@Danu But you see now why I said what I said, right?
@Robusto What you said where
Never mind.
12:42 PM
@terdon The last sentence in that quote is a lot better than the rest.
@terdon But the whole post is conflating universe sizes as always being infinite.
Not my field at all, but I read that as basically saying "we're not entirely sure what this means in anything but the most abstract mathematical terms"
Then why are we even talking about this at all?
@Robusto I've always had trouble getting the idea of different sized infinities.
@tchrist Seven dwarves a badger.
12:44 PM
@terdon Close enough. The proper interpretation is: We're not entirely sure what this means. In our most powerful current mathematical model (general relativity), things go wrong at this point, so we're trying to come up with a better theory that may possibly deal with this stuff better.
@terdon Oh. That's easy. one's just bigger than the other.
Sounds fair enough.
@terdon There is an infinity of positive numbers and an infinity of numbers. They are the same size, even though one would appear to be twice as big as the other.
@Mitch But no, what if it's smaller?
@Robusto But that's not so hard to deal with if one is rigorous enough.
12:45 PM
Oh I see the confusion. It's never smaller
One just needs the notion of a bijection.
@Robusto Yeah. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Different sized infinities that are still identical sized.
@terdon No. In a precise sense, the reals and half of the reals are exactly the same size.
The naive way of thinking about it simply fails.
TO be serious, it is a misunderstanding between what normal people mean by size and what mathematicians have stipulated to be the new definition.
@Mitch Right. One has to formalize a lot before being able to discuss these things in a manner that is precise enough to leave no room for doubt.
(and this means losing a lot of intuition along the way)
12:46 PM
one could define size to be ... or rather bigger size to be X is a proper subset of Y, then Y is bigger than X.
@Danu Which is the only way I have, unfortunately.
But it's more interesting to use bijection.
The proof of this, IIRC from high-school, involves mapping sets.
@Mitch And it really seems the only right way, once one knows it.
I don't get how you can consider two sets one of which is a subset of the other, as having the same cardinality.
That's one of the, many, reasons I ended up in biology and not mathematics.
12:48 PM
@terdon Because there exists a bijection between them.
You can make a map that maps precisely one element of the first set to one of the second set and vice versa.
@terdon uniquote -v
@tchrist Ah, much nicer, thanks.
@Danu That can't be true! Consider the numbers between 1 and 2 and those between 1 and 3. Both are infinite but there can't be a bijection between them.
> If X and Y are finite sets, then there exists a bijection between the two sets X and Y if and only if X and Y have the same number of elements. Indeed, in axiomatic set theory, this is taken as the definition of "same number of elements" (equinumerosity), and generalising this definition to infinite sets leads to the concept of cardinal number, a way to distinguish the various sizes of infinite sets.
@terdon There is one.
There is even a bijection between the line and the plane.
(which is much weirder!)
@Robusto Yeah, just looked it up so I could sound less clueless.
12:50 PM
The Wikipedia article does refer to a way to distinguish the various sizes of infinite sets.
It all has to do with the subtleties of infinities.
Now I'm even more confused.
@Danu Umm. Every single number from set A is also present in set B but the latter has a whole slew of extras. How can there be a bijection?
@Robusto Of course, there are many types of infinities.
(infinitely many, of course!)
To be, for example.
12:51 PM
@terdon Because of the subtleties of the continuum that the real numbers form.
I thought I was happy just living my life. Now I have to deal with infinities that may or may not be different sizes.
"Because subtleties" is pure evasion, not an answer :P
@Robusto There is a very famous and beautiful proof that there are more real numbers than rational numbers (fractions)
@terdon It really isn't.
Join the Army!
@Danu I'm sure it's not if you know these subtleties. It just sounds like one :)
12:52 PM
But I can't explain the elements of set theory to you in this chatroom. Feel free to read a textbook on the matter if you feel so inclined ;)
Hello soldier!
@RegDwigнt That's so gay, I'm surprised Putin didn't ban it.
@Danu Fair enough and no thanks. That's why I collaborate with mathematicians. They can deal with all of this crap.
@terdon This crap is very beautiful!
@Danu To each their own
And yes, I know it is. Once you actually get it. It isn't if you don't though.
12:54 PM
@terdon I'm sure that, as a biologist, you can sympathize with beautiful crap :D
I would rather listen to music.
@Robusto Por que no las dos?
@Robusto I'm sorry, you were saying?..
12:54 PM
@Danu Porque nadie quiere escuchar música de mierda tío!
@terdon Here's the getting part: THere's nothing to get, they're are different things. Related, similar, yes. But different. They're identical on finite sets, but cardinality and subset are not the same on infinite sets.
@Mitch See? That looks like it should make perfect sense and yet...
@Danu Porque cuando escucho música no puedo hacer nada más.
Also, there are infinite ordinal numbers strictly between aleph_0 and aleph_1 (in case you were wondering)
12:56 PM
In mathematical analysis, a space-filling curve is a curve whose range contains the entire 2-dimensional unit square (or more generally an n-dimensional hypercube). Because Giuseppe Peano (1858–1932) was the first to discover one, space-filling curves in the 2-dimensional plane are sometimes called Peano curves, but that phrase also refers to the Peano curve, the specific example of a space-filling curve found by Peano. == Definition == Intuitively, a continuous curve in 2 or 3 (or higher) dimensions can be thought of as the path of a continuously moving point. To eliminate the inherent vagueness...
Time to go! Bye, everyone.
At some point one wonders whether certain some mathematical proofs are only semantic tricks.
later pal
@Robusto They're not; Once one agrees on a logical system, there is nothing to complain about.
@terdon for finite sets yes that is impossible. but infitie sets can have lots of things inbetween.
12:58 PM
@Danu But it is not inconceivable that what seems to be a proof at one point may later be deemed wrong.
@Robusto Not once it is completely worked out.
size is defined by bijection, not by counting one by one (but for finite sets bijection and counting happen to coincide)
Sometimes, mathematicians don't fill in all the details---that's dangerous. But in principle, everything can be checked.
@Mitch Apparently. So, if I understand correctly, the existence of bijection between the sets of numbers 1-2 and 1-3, means that I could theoretically draw a line between all elements of both sets. Despite the fact that there are more elements in the latter.
In fact, there are people who do this professionally (proof-checking). One very famous theorem was completely checked by computer because it was too difficult/long to be checked by humans.
12:59 PM
Or, I guess, you will tell me that there aren't more elements in the latter.
In mathematics, the four color theorem, or the four color map theorem, states that, given any separation of a plane into contiguous regions, producing a figure called a map, no more than four colors are required to color the regions of the map so that no two adjacent regions have the same color. Two regions are called adjacent if they share a common boundary that is not a corner, where corners are the points shared by three or more regions. For example, in the map of the United States of America, Utah and Arizona are adjacent, but Utah and New Mexico, which only share a point that also belongs...
@terdon Exactly.
@Danu what's your field? Mathematics? Physics?
@Danu Infamously.
@Danu But there are! Waaaah!
@terdon Check out my profile ;) Mathematical physics.
1:01 PM
Damn, worst of both worlds! :P
@terdon I'll pretend I didn't hear that.
There is no Physical mathematics :P
@skillpatrol Some would disagree with that:
@Danu :)
1:03 PM
Physical mathematics is not the same as mathematical physics.
Or, at least, it shouldn't be.
@terdon That's true.
I'd count mathematical gauge theory as "physical mathematics"
The inspiration/techniques come from physics
Some of the most famous contributors are mainly physicists (notably Ed Witten)
The mathematics of physics is not the same as the physics of mathematics?
@skillpatrol Exactly
1:08 PM
Just like the wool of sheep is not the same as the sheep of wool.
The physics of mathematics just doesn't sound right...
@terdon And bad grammar is not the same as grammar bad.
@Robusto Hey, if you have 3 sheep, one made of stone, one of wood and one of wool, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to the sheep of wool.
Or maybe you have a friend, Wool, and he has many sheep.
that's just a play on words pal
@terdon The Greeks had a word for this: sophistry. (They spoke in English much of the time, especially when they wanted to be understood by us.)
1:11 PM
Hey, @RegDwigнt @MattE.Эллен, what do you guys think about finally opening a migration path to ELL?
Q: Should we have a migration path to ELL?

terdonI know that this has been discussed before but, at the time, it was not possible since ELL was still in beta. Now that it has graduated and has had its first mod elections and everything, it might be time to reconsider the question. So, should we have a migration path opened to ELL? I believe t...

@terdon I'm going to turn this into a poll by posting a Yes answer and a No answer. Take the temperature of the community.
1:30 PM
New Stravinsky score discovered!. Well, actually an old one. But it was previously thought lost.
@terdon I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but do understand that they won't like it.
@tchrist The dumping ground problem?
Yes, I should add something about that.
@tchrist They being . . . ?
OK, question edited to clarify that we don't plan to dump our crap on them.
They being the ELL folks.
@terdon "crap" is subjective, though.
1:39 PM
in ELL's Cabin, 37 mins ago, by inɒzɘmɒЯ.A.M
@tchrist Considering that sometimes some guys send us crap, I think that's not gonna happen.
@skillpatrol sighs
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Well, yes and no. Just like with any migration path, we should only migrate questions that are 1) good questions; 2) on topic on the target site.
Do they get a reverse-migration path?
Dunno, would that make sense? I know we get many Qs here that would be a better fit for ELL, I have no idea if the inverse is true.
Check the migration stats.
1:43 PM
@tchrist Only one from there to here and 79 from here to there.
@terdon yes, we should do that. My concern is that people might not know the difference between crappy questions for ELU that'd be fine on ELL vs questions that would be considered crappy there too.
Can the target site reject migration?
@Robusto Yes
Well, a mod on the target site can.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Yes, that is always a danger with migration paths.
I feel we've endured years of dealing with questions that should rightly have been asked on ELL. Maybe now it's their turn to deal with the shit.
I do think that the ELU -> ELL path is one of the clearest we're likely to find network-wide though.
@Robusto Not the shit! Only those we find boring but are of interest ton people learning/teaching the language.
1:47 PM
@terdon Call it what you like.
A turd by any other name...?
Something like that.
Notice that there are no ELL migrations that don't have ELU as one end-point.
But that the other way around it is (slightly) different.
It's not a perfect system, true. It could be spoofed. Are you saying that if the system is not perfect then you should be allowed to violate its rules merely because you can find ways around them? — Robusto 9 secs ago
@tchrist What do you mean? You're only showing the ELU migrations so of course it's always going to be an endpoint.
1:52 PM
@terdon No sir.
There simply are no others.
Ah, OK, but there's also linguistics there. And their meta, of course.
I don't think any other site would make sense.
Rivers flow downhill. It's a law of nature.
The Reversing Falls are a series of rapids on the Saint John River located in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada, where the river runs through a narrow gorge before emptying into the Bay of Fundy. The semidiurnal tides of the bay force the flow of water to reverse against the prevailing current at this location when the tide is high, although in the spring freshet, this is frequently surpassed by the downstream volume of water. The rapids, or "falls", are created by a series of underwater ledges which roil the water in either direction, causing a significant navigation hazard, despite the depth...
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 And during the New Madrid quakes in the early 19th century, the Mississippi was made to flow backwards. But that is still unnatural. And your reversing falls would not be noteworthy at all if a trick of hydraulics did not cause them to do the unnatural thing.
Hi @MετάEd how are you doing pal?
2:07 PM
@Robusto Well, it's in nature, thus natural.
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Then let's call it rare and unusual and contrary to the normal flow.
Hello everybody
Which one is correct? (Is the first one incorrect?)
1- "This page was not recently updated.. I am planning an update soon.."
2- "This page has not been recently updated.. I am planning an update soon.."
@skillpatrol I'll do.
@MετάEd one day at a time pal
I've been there...
2:19 PM
Where did you find these words? Generally when people ask "Is there a word" they mean an established word that others will recognize or understand. I can't find even a single Google hit for these words. — Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 16 secs ago
@Gigili Why are there double periods after the first sentences?
I see pineapples using double periods a lot. Is there some language in which that works?
@Robusto It's not my formatting. I copied it from a website.
2:21 PM
@Gigili Link?
I still think this is unconstructively primarily opinion based; just look at the hundreds of comments and answers it has generated:
Q: Is "act like a mensch" too localized for ELU readers (U.S. and/or British English)?

aparente001This question was motivated by an interesting comment that was made at http://academia.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/123681?noredirect=1 Part of Answer: I don't think that particular research team would be a healthy place for you. The guy behaved badly. You need an advisor you can trust ...

The OP wants a discussion and a poll.
@Gigili Yes, I see. Perhaps the double period means something in Hindi, then. Or Farsi. Whatever.
@Robusto Is the sentence correct?
@Gigili Which one?
2:24 PM
@Robusto No special meaning or usage in Farsi, AFAIA
> Note: This page was not recently updated.. I am planning an update soon..
I see nothing wrong with that other than double periods. I would prefer the present perfect there, though.
@Robusto OK, thank you
@Gigili it's correct but clumsy. A better way would be this page hasn't been updated recently or similar constructions.
Or just change the structure: this page hasn't been updated for a while. I wouldn't use recently at all, really.
@terdon Got it. Thank you
@terdon well you can't do that for {1,2} and {1,2,3}. But you can for the two infinite sets X:[1,2] and [Y:1,3] by the bijection y = 3/2 x. for every item in X there's exactly one corresponding item in Y, and by the mathematical definition of cardinality (not one's informal idea of it) X and Y have the same cardinality. Informally we say they have the same size but that's unfortunate because it brings all the connotations we have with the word 'size' and those connotations are misleading.
So don't use 'size' for comparing infinities.
2:34 PM
@Mitch Fair enough. They have the same cardinality by definition. But only, as you said, in a strict mathematical sense. That's well put.
Yes, "size" is a finite concept.
It has a beginning and an end.
We can "measure" size.
So we can measure the size of the universe?
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 That sounds like a quote from Alice in Wonderland. :Generally when I say something, I mean people to understand it" or something like that. But Humpty Dumpty said something eles
@Robusto how?
@Mitch Well, Humpty Dumpty was right, but also, totally unhelpful.
2:43 PM
3 mins ago, by skill patrol
It has a beginning and an end.
@skillpatrol I'm asking you. Are you saying the universe doesn't have a size?
Without a way to measure it there is no way to tell.
@Robusto Isn't that an open question?
@terdon right. It is totally messed up to think that the evens are as big as all integers. That's probably why so many people had difficulty with the infinities that Cantor produced because he used every words to describe them (and also it does correspond to size for finite things).
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 "You are in a balloon"
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 I'm asking. @skill is making pronouncements and I'm trying to understand the implications.
2:45 PM
@Mitch quickly puts pins away Good thing you told me
@Robusto I guess he's saying that, strictly speaking, "infinite" is not a thing when it comes to "size".
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 You can put a pin into a ballon and not have it pop by putting tape on first and poking through the tape.
In case the need came up.
@Mitch That's how you measure the universe.
@Robusto I'm just saying our sense of "size" is closely tied to our ability to the measurement of that "size." Recall measurement is a value.
@tchrist and it lets out the air real slow
@skillpatrol "The L is for Value"
@skillpatrol Are you saying the size of the universe cannot have a value?
2:52 PM
Did I say "cannot?"
Do you have a point?
Does a "point" have a size?
Do you think it does?
@tchrist There's a Far Side comic that would be appropriate here but I can't find it online.
I think 6.5 points is too much to cover for NE tonight :-)
2:57 PM
Do you have half a point?
half of infinity is still infinity
There is no such thing as half of infinity.
But you could have half an Infiniti.
@tchrist prove it
Visit enough junkyards and you'll find one.
00:00 - 15:0015:00 - 00:00

« first day (1764 days earlier)      last day (2106 days later) »