12:01 AM
"$^\rho \Bbb R$ and $\hat{\Bbb R}$ are isomorphic and $\hat \rho$ is a scale for $\hat {\Bbb R}$"
Aw yis
I need to read up more on archimedean fields, me thinks

I must be absolutely insane
What is happening
Is a compactly supported $n$-form with 0 integral automatically exact on $\Bbb R^n$??
Oh
I think this is trivial
Just view the problem as a sheaf cohomological non-archimedian field
biject it onto a Coulembeau algebra on a functorial category topos
Ohhh, you need the differentiation under the integral sign rule

12:38 AM
I hate algebraic topology.

apparently a monad in non-archimedean fields is like
A point + all the points infinitesimally close to it
and it is an open set, apparently

Holy god Bott & Tu's definition of the Euler class is disgusting
When a definition takes a page, you know it's bad
$$e(E)=-\frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm i}\sum_\gamma \mathrm d(\rho_\gamma\,\mathrm d \log g_{\gamma\alpha})$$
...that's crazy
That's literally nuts
Oh, but it makes functoriality trivial
$$\Phi=\mathrm d\left(\rho(r)\frac{\mathrm d\theta_\alpha}{2\pi}\right)+\frac{1}{2\pi\mathrm i}\mathrm d\left(\rho(r)\pi^*\sum_\gamma\rho_\gamma\,\mathrm d\log g_{\gamma\alpha}\right)$$

1:33 AM
Since most of the big extensions of the reals are isomorphic that should make the whole Hilbertoid space easier

shouldn't you be in bed

I'm a grown up
I do my own bedtime
I can eat candy all day if I want

'fraid not
I ain't American

Australia and Mexico are fatter than America, bub

1:35 AM
Mexico has more overweight and obese than the US
But the US has more super fatsos

I never said you're super fatso
Just pudgy
wtf they don't even define what $\Lambda^qT^*M\otimes E$ means
oh god module tensor product
@Slereah found a copy of that Hadamard book in the library

30 dollaridoos
That's reasonable

for a used copy

Eh, used, new
Not a lot of difference

One might have semen on it, the other won't
Pretty big difference, imo

1:48 AM
Which one, though
Also who jerks off to an analysis book

Non-standard analysis seems pretty hipster
Probably any hipster who reads it, honestly.

hipsters do love ultrafilters and cofinite sets

what's an ultrafilter

It's the largest filter

what's that

1:51 AM
A filter is a subset of a partially ordered set

@Slereah hmm, why is it called a filter

Not quite sure
The propety is like
If $x$ is in the filter, and $x \leq y$, then $y$ is in the filter

...
what is $y$

and for $x,y$ in the filter, then there's a $z$ in the filter such that $z \leq x$ and $z \leq y$
$y$ is another element of the set

Take $\Bbb N$
if $1$ is in the filter, is the filter $\Bbb N$?

1:55 AM
3

In the sources I've seen, the integral is defined in non-standard calculus as the hyperreal extension of a function related to Riemann sums. E.g., Let $$S(\Delta x) = \sum_{a}^{b}f(x)\Delta x$$ be a function of a Riemann sum where $\Delta x$ is the length of each partition. Then let $S^*(\Delta... I'd say so, yes What the hell are filters good for, then not quite sure Hence why the book should be read It's probably prerequisite knowledge, fam We'll see IIRC the important thing is that one : In mathematics, the Fréchet filter, also called the cofinite filter, on a set is a special subset of the set's power set. A member of this power set is in the Fréchet filter if and only if its complement in the power set is finite. This is of interest in topology, where filters originated, and relates to order and lattice theory because a set's power set is a partially ordered set (and more specifically, a lattice) under set inclusion. The Fréchet filter is named after the French mathematician Maurice Fréchet (1878-1973), who worked in topology. It is alternatively called a cofinite filter because... That's how you define the hyperreals 1:59 AM is z always get sandwiched by x and y since$x \leq y$and x,y, in the filter but z is less than x and less than y? No, those are different properties @Secret best not to ask him about filters ok let him read the book also it's a poset, so if x and z, and y and z have a relation, there's no guarantee that x and y have a relation 2:00 AM then maybe we can get some straight answers whenever I see topology, I start thinking about venn diagrams of some sort venn diagrams make the topological world go round noncommutative probabilities of quantum, however obeys a different logic that cannot be represented by venn diagrams (although that's still fine because I think in columns) One reason I struggle a lot with analysis is because series don't look like columns Is it, you insane man I could probably get you banned for that insult Be nice. 2:05 AM That is not an insult I sincerely believe he is a crazy man Not nice Well, at least that's how I understood that PSE link about noncommutative probabilities "Think in columns" means tend to find things simpler when represented by matrices, which is good for matlab coding 68 The theory of probability used in QM is intrinsically different from the one commonly used for the following reason: The space of events is non-commutative (more properly non-Boolean) and this fact deeply affects the conditional probability theory. The probability that A happens if B happened is ... An example of something that cannot be easily phrased in columns is: Expand (a+b)(c+d-e^2+exp(f)) and that's where I often made my careless mistakes in computation (e.g. missing out terms) But hopefully as I continue to study I will eventually get better because non chunky things like analysis have a lot of fun things to play with (e.g. investigating the properties of some PDEs) I'm trying to get some concepts straight in my head and I'd appreciate any clarification or references. I'm trying to tie Maxwell's demon together with some computational complexity arguments. It seems like there might be an argument to be made that if Maxwell's demon could simulate the system faster than it takes to let the system evolve (by using some NP-complete oracle, say) then this would be a violation of conservation of energy Is this totally off base? Does anyone have suggestions on how to formalize what I'm getting at or have any references? 2:21 AM @user834 I only found an arxiv paper that mention both topics, but does not seemed to have something that fits exactly your description Secret, I've done google searching (including Physics SE search) and haven't found much https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-computational-oracle-physically-possible.529995/ Related QUOTE wikipedia In an abstract setting we can generally say that a projection is a mapping of a set (or of a mathematical structure) which is idempotent, which means that a projection is equal to its composition with itself. A projection may also refer to a mapping which has a left inverse. Both notions are strongly related, as follows. Let p be an idempotent map from a set A into itself (thus p∘p = p) and B = p(A) be the image of p. If we denote by π the map p viewed as a map from A onto B and by i the injection of B into A, then we have π.i= IdB. Conversely, π.i = IdB implies that π∘i is ... Visualisation give the feel of something, but it is abstraction that lay out the bare bones of what is truly relevant Tfw a book says something you have literally no clue how to prove Not even a slight idea Huh, I wonder if transition functions of a bundle vs. its dual are inverses. @secret, thanks, good find. Not exactly giving answers but a step in the right direction "In 1982, Bennett showed that, however well prepared, eventually the demon will run out of information storage space and must begin to erase the information it has previously gathered." 3:35 AM SLEEP 2 hours later… 5:52 AM @Obliv the Schwartzschild metric doesn't transform smoothly into the Minkowski metric as you take the mass to zero because the Schwarzschild metric has a point (the singularity) missing. However no real black hole has a geometry described by the Schwarzschild metric. I think any real black hole will deform seamlessly back into Minkowski spacetime as it evaporates. 1 hour later… 7:07 AM @Obliv : you might want to read up on Hawking radiation. user54412 7:31 AM > HOW is my question OFF TOPIC? I clearly stated that I NEED help 4 8:27 AM @ChrisWhite Best defense on the SE network I have ever heard in a while. @0celo7 I am not quite sure what the question is, but transition functions of the dual bundle are just dualizations of the original transition functions. But I feel like you know this. If you equip the bundle with a Riemannian metric, then under the inner product on each vector space fiber, your map becomes the transpose (after identifying$\hom(V_x, \Bbb R)$with$V_x$). Well, inverse of the transpose (because range and domain gets switched), but whatever. 2 hours later… 10:09 AM -1 In the stack overflow site where people post questions on programming, it makes sense to have a policy where the question asked should state the efforts made by the asker to solve the problem and the problems he is facing in that implementation. But should this policy be applied to the the Stack ... 2 hours later… 12:19 PM @BalarkaSen I need to calculate the transition functions of$\Lambda^n T^*M$, and am failing. @heather This edit is really not quite there physics.stackexchange.com/revisions/271398/2 If you're going to edit, and particularly if you're going to do so regularly, do make sure you get everything that needs to be fixed in one go, and you don't introduce further errors. (In this specific case it's the minor error \Pi → \pi, plus some formatting. But if you're doing unilateral edits, you need to be on point.) no sweat, of course ;-) :D -1 Let us assume that universe is 14 billion years old and that we look at the most distant stars that existed 14 billion years ago. Logic tell us that these stars should be very very young, maybe we should see only gas. But we see old supernovae probably many more times bigger than our sun and they... Quite clear OHHHHHH USE THE POINCARE LEMMA @Slereah I'm about to dive into the world of sheaves. God help us all. 12:36 PM maybe when you come back you can tell me what the hell a sheaf is you still owe me an explanation of a filter and you still haven't sent me Shouten "If$z\in B(x, r)$, then$B(z,r) = B(x,r)$" Ultrametrics are weird$\ot$hmm$\rightarrow\to\leftarrow\uparrow$@0celo7 As a cosmologist, I feel the world owes me a dollar for every time someone says the big bang was an explosion that happened at a specific point in the universe. Just to cover the cost of the mental damage they do to me. And because then I'd be stinking rich 12:43 PM To be fair, it's your own damn fault Why did you call it the Big Bang That's what Fred Hoyle called it and that guy is a douche @Slereah No sheaves, just presheaves. > In this section, the MV sequence will be generalized from two open sets to countable many open sets WHAT wtf @Slereah That was a joke that was taken too literally. I'm not happy but that's the name now @Jim Horrendous space kablooie, then? @EmilioPisanty That's a much better name HSK 12:56 PM Seriously, I've seen a bunch of on-and-off complaints that 'big bang' isn't a great name, but I've never seen any reasonable alternative. Big expand everywhere @0celo7 that's terrible @EmilioPisanty why @Slereah sheaves?? @0celo7 How is it different from the stuff after the big bang? @EmilioPisanty what 12:59 PM @0celo7 never mind @0celo7 Understanding this diagram will definitely require me to understand the concept of sheafs, otherwise it looks like a bunch of points connected by arrows in some kind of "space" with p and q as the "axes" @EmilioPisanty Hot Expansion Era? Cosmic Origin Theory? Oh @EmilioPisanty Really fast expand everywhere, then slow down I think that should address your issue @Secret Actually, this has nothing to do with sheaves, yet. ok We have a doubly graded differential complex with two differential maps 1:05 PM @0celo7 that's a perfect name for the big bang theory no layman could possibly understand it and so none of them would misuse it I'm a layman lies I don't have a technical degree -- that makes me a layman. you're an amateur, not a layman No, an amateur is someone who does not have a PhD, but does have a degree. Layman --> amateur --> professional 1:07 PM a layman is an uninitiated someone The maps here are called "degrees" you're an enthusiast layman: a person without professional or specialized knowledge in a particular subject (yes, I had to google it. Let's just move past that point) "The p-adic numbers were discovered by Hensel at the end of the 19th century as a tool in number theory. Today, those numbers play a key role in many areas beyond number theory – among those areas are algebraic geometry, analysis, p-adic physics, p-adic quantum mechanics, representation theory, and many others." p-adic QM Gross I never understood the properties of prime numbers. to be honest, abstract algebra is less abstract than number theory 1:35 PM @Slereah there is also adelic QM @yuggib What do you think about making QM with a non-archimedean Hilbert space Since there's an embedding of distributions in functions of generalized scalars does that sound like a slice of fried gold Quick interjection: let's have some eyes on this to see if it deserves to be reopened after having been edited 0 Picture a horizontal concrete pillar resting on two supports (one at each end). Assuming the pillar is only affected by a constant force$F=1N$(applied to its center of gravity)and proton decay (big hypothesis, I know). Could proton decay eventually break the pillar into two pieces? If it do... @Slereah no You don't know QM Go back to manifolds I do know some QM 1:48 PM Say 5 things about QM It's Jewish Wrong Max Planck wasn't jewish nor De Broglie Einstein was States are rays in Hilbert space Einstein didn't work a lot on QM They evolve via the Schroedinger equation Born rule Harmonic oscillator has bound states Angular momentum is a multiple of 1/2 Do I win? 1:50 PM Wrong Anyons can have arbitrary angular momentum Wait, can they? I'm not sure That's not QM you dummkopf What's the angular momentum of anyons 6 It so is QM There are couple of clarification questions one can ask him or put into the equation in the answer: 1. How thick is the pillar in terms of number of protons (that will also require knowing what material the pillar is made of) 2. Is the proton decay localised at one section, or all over the pillar in some random manner he have given a simplification on the model on how he treat the atomic bonds and such as system of springs, thus the answer need to address how these bonds weaken when protons convert slowly into other particles 1:54 PM @Slereah In 3 dimensions, angular momentum is a multiple of 1/2 Better Ah, nice and gold now Wait (cont.) As a molecular chemistry problem, it will be quite hard to simulate, but as a newtonian mechanics problem, perhaps it might be tractable What's the spin of the continuous spin representation 1:55 PM anyons can have any value for their spin, that's what I remembered 2:08 PM There's too many users around now. Whenever a good question I want to answer comes along, someone else gets to it and says almost the same thing I was going to before I even get a chance to read it. But more than that, all the terrible new posts to old questions are deleted before I get a whack at them. That used to be my favorite sport Feels like us part-time users with busy real-world work are becoming obsolete 2:24 PM I remember that Feynman was like telling that circular motion is like a combination of two orthoconal oscillations, along ix axis and along y axis. But, I wonder how do I get a harmonic oscillation by squeezing the circular motion into elliptic (I can do that reducing the y-oscillation energy). I see that there must be a zero acceleration when x-oscillation crosses the origin. But, it will be opposite in case of gravity because two bodies will be at 0 distance in the origin, the attraction force will be infinite. is the metric expansion of space logarithmic depends on the metric @Obliv assuming you man the FLRW metric, then it depends on the equation of state of whatever is filling the universe. None of the known stuff produces a logarthmic expansion. @LittleAlien With two bodies orbiting each other in elliptical orbits the bodies sit at a focus of the ellipse not in the centre. So it isn't useful to try and model it using two SHOs. @johnR so is it a linearly accelerated expansion? @Obliv for dark energy the expansion is exponential$a(t) \propto e^{Ht}$. For normal matter in a flat universe we get$a(t) \propto t^{2/3}$I think. 14 How does the Hubble parameter change with the age of the universe? This question was posted recently, and I had almost finished writing an answer when the question was deleted. Since it's a shame to waste the effort here's the answer anyway. Maybe this can be one of the canonical answers sugges... ^ Just feed your equation of state into the integral. 2:54 PM @MarkMitchison are you done ~sept? later? how about celebrating with a speaker session on it & while its fresh in your mind :D @Jim we could certainly use you for a speaker session whaddya say :) 3:09 PM @Slereah You are weird. Why are mathematicians awful Todorov gives an axiom saying that there's an embedding of distributions in functions on generalized scalars, but he gives no representations for it What am I supposed to do with it 3:40 PM True or false: FALSE Gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime due to any object that has a mass energy @0celo7 You jumped the gun I read your mind Naturally. Do you stick by your original answer? No 3:44 PM Yay 4:01 PM @NoahP : LOL. The answer is FALSE. The tidal force is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime due to some concentration of energy. @JohnDuffield And the gravitational attraction between two bodies is not? Nope. Oh, I want an explanation for this one Look at my avatar. whoa what is that I haven't seen that in my textbooks 4:06 PM @JohnDuffield Care to elaborate? I was under the impression that the tidal force is a secondary effect of gravity The curvature you can see in this Riemann curvature tensor depiction is spacetime curvature. But light doesn't "follow the curvature of spacetime". It curves where spacetime is tilted. The force of gravity is the first derivative of potential, the tidal force is the second derivative of potential. Oh lol, I thought I was wrong for a second. @NoahP the curvature is the obstruction to flatness, so a nonzero curvature tensor means nonflat, which means nonzero first derivatives. @0celo7 @JohnDuffield So how would you correct the original statement? @NoahP define gravity Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is responsible for many of the structures in the Universe, by creating spheres of hydrogen — where hydrogen fuses under pressure to form stars — and grouping them into galaxies. On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects and causes the tides. Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become increasingly weaker on farther objects. Gravity is most accurately described... 4:11 PM I don't want a wiki page Okay Well The force between the earth and an asteroid, that causes the two bodies to move towards each other @NoahP : to be honest I'd relegate the curvature of spacetime. It isn't actually why light curves or why your pencil falls down. You won't find Einstein saying that. Funnily enough I've just written an introductory chapter on gravity. Here's a little excerpt from it... LIGHT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CURVATURE OF SPACETIME This is why light does not follow the curvature of spacetime. You can appreciate this if you zoom in on a section of the plot. If we represent a light beam with a yellow line, it curves wherever there’s a gradient in gravitational potential. That’s where the grid lines are tilted as opposed to curved: The force of gravity and so the curvature of light is greatest where the tilt is greatest. The tilted light-cones in this Stanford singularities and black holes article are another way of depicting the same thing. Alternatively you can emulate the tilt with a piece of stiff board. Lift one side up, and roll a marble across it. It follows a curved path because the board is tilted, not because the board is curved. It’s similar for the room you’re in. The force of gravity g is 9.8 m/s² at the floor and at the ceiling, so there’s no detectable tidal force, and so no detectable spacetime curvature. But your pencil still falls down. Im slightly confused as to why everything else ive read says that curvature of spacetime results in gravity When i say curvature, i mean a non-flat spacetime It's because you need some curvature to have some tilt. If you don't have any curvature your rubber-sheet Riemann-curvature plot is as flat as a pancake. Like the top image here: what is the difference between 'tilt' and 'curve' they seem synonymous 4:20 PM ^ yeah @Obliv you're too smart to listen to this man @Obliv : lift one side of a flat board and it's tilted but it isn't curved. Now roll a marble across it. The path is curved. @0celo7 help.. i forgot my wallet at home so i can't get lunch and my exam is in 3 hours ;( i hate taking exams hungry @johnD That is contradictory. The path is clearly a straight line angled downward. I think this needs a question @Obliv : lift the left hand side of the board up so it's like this \ and roll the marble forwards. It's path curves down to the right. 4:27 PM so what if the board isn't a flat one, and instead when tilted it looks curved? explaining gravity with either tilt or curvature is the same business something is being deformed negatively with the mass at the end of lower potential @Slereah Not even an example or even some abstract statement on what the embedding look like? That's sounds so Axiom of Choice to me (in that whatever proved to exists by AC, cannot be explicitly constructed) that's a common math thing Although he does use Robinson's hyperreals as a representations of generalized scalars 0 Having looked at this question online, multiple sources overwhelmingly support the statement that 'Gravity results from the curvature of space-time due to mass-energy'. However, discussions on the H-Bar (See here in the chat logs) have led to me doubting this. So, is the above statement correct... Which isn't that hard to show since they're basically all isomorphic @Obliv : I'm not sure what you're driving at. If you have a floppy board and you lift one end, the local slope of the board denotes the force of gravity, whilst the local curvature of the board denotes the tidal force. 4:32 PM ok, that's better than the vagueness shown to exists by the axiom of choice, at least there's still something "tangible" to work with 19 If you have a look at my answer to When objects fall along geodesic paths of curved space-time, why is there no force acting on them? this explains how on a curved surface two moving observers will appear to exprience a force pulling them together. However two stationary observers will feel no fo... might also be useful @JohnDuffield But surely if you have no mass in a universe, there are no gravitational forces, and also no curvature of spacetime - the two are ilinked? 12 Assume a static metric with (known) components$g_{\mu\nu}$. I'd like to know what is the gravitational pull$g$of a test particle placed on an arbitrary point$X\$. The gravitational pull being defined as the acceleration the particle suffers as measured by an observer sitting in a reference fr...

@noahP You can't measure curvature of spacetime afaik

But you know that with no mass-energy, there is no curvature?
The magnitude is irrelevant

4:35 PM
how do you know that? according to GR sure

Is that not a prediction of GR?
Mass-energy results in curvature of spacetime

@NoahP : they are linked, but there's an issue of cause and effect. A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star "conditions" the surrounding space rendering it inhomogeneous in a non-linear way. This is modelled as curved spacetime. Light curves and your pencil falls down because space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic", not because "spacetime is curved".

Two masses will gravitate towards each other

I have to go I'm afraid.

@JohnDuffield Would you mind submitting a formal answer later on?

4:38 PM
No problem, but Wednesday night is roast chicken dinner night. It will have to be tomorrow I'm afraid.

@noahP Theory is meant only to explain observation and withstand experiment. It can surely predict situations but without experimental evidence you can't know anything that a theory predicts.

Haha okay, thanks @JohnDuffield
@Obliv Okay, but thats just being perdantic

@JohnDuffield hm, I don't like that phrasing, but all these things are not especially well defined anyway

@David Z : that's what Einstein said. See this answer for the exact quote.

@NoahP No, I'm telling you that GR is only a theory. gravity breaks down at the quantum level so if you can claim space-time curvature as the reason for why masses gravitate towards each other, can you explain why we can't observe such behavior from particles?

4:40 PM
If I say yes, will you give me a nobel prize?
I've also gotta go now, would appreciate answers to the question on SE though
thanks!

you'll have to not only explain it, but prove it ;)
cya

4:58 PM
@NoahP Hi Noah, are you still around?

1 hour later…
user54412
6:06 PM
@NoahP fyi just about everything said in the above conversation is false. Don't think too hard trying to make sense of it.

@vzn a speaker session? (sorry for delay, got new computers at work today. Just setting up)

@ChrisWhite Pretty sure what I said was correct.

6:24 PM
@Jim yeah as you may have noticed everyone has been recruited from in here so far. you have masters in physics? cosmology? good enough! :) the Phds are ("even") more busy & harder to recruit :|

@vzn I'm more curious about what this session is

@Jim have you been following? more info in meta posts/ transcript. we've had 2 so far & 3rd with DS is scheduled. slereah (masters) did the 1st. think of it like thesis presentation if you are interested/ have time

I'm not sure if I'd have the time

@Jim ok np. we are doing them about 1/mo and next mo is ~sept. plz keep it in mind & let me know if you chg your mind, think youre qualified & ppl would find it interesting :)

obviously I have no problem with an "ask me anything" session. I know my cosmology fairly well. But my job requires me to be away from my computer most of the time

6:29 PM
@Jim no kidding? sounds a bit strange/ unusual wrt typical jobs which are more the opposite. (what is it?)

I'm basically a lab technician right now. I'm constantly debugging, fixing, creating, and maintaining physics experiments

@Jim ok. its only 1 hr session it goes by fast but it is during US working hrs. could possibly schedule it at other time at your convenience. cosmology is a big topic in here, lots of cool stuff going on, am sure your pov would be worthwhile to share

We'll see. I suppose I could do it during a lunch hour

@Jim ok cool :) ... am gonna blog about it soon & theres the meta posts etc
what kind of experiments are you working on?

Right now I'm trying to redesign my own franck-hertz experiement
the one the university had is frustratingly uncooperative

6:34 PM
ok interesting sounds like great topic. did a few std physics experiments as undergrad long time ago... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck%E2%80%93Hertz_experiment
@Jim re a somewhat relevant topic wrt this site/ room etc

6:56 PM
if you tell me he is you...

2 hours later…
8:31 PM
@DavidZ : Noah's question has been closed with a reference to an alleged "duplicate" where all the answers are wrong because the question is wrong. And we have posters saying "just about everything said in the above conversation is false". That's not nice. IMHO your intervention is required here. Please ensure that Noah's enquiry is properly addressed.

can you provide a link? :)

@Sanya: here it is. Noah started a conversation earlier this evening then asked a question. Now I've got some time to answer it I find it's closed as an alleged duplicate of a question that confused curved spacetime with curved space, and where the answer, by the person who closed Noah's question, is totally wrong.

thank you :)

Sigh.
Bye.

see you :)

9:29 PM
ICHEP 2016 has begun!

particle physics is overrated

10:13 PM
@JohnDuffield (1) wrongness has no bearing on whether a question is a duplicate (2) saying that something is wrong is perfectly within our policy on civility. Nothing for the mods to do here.

10:55 PM
Guys
For two points in a non-archimedean fields, with a distance that isn't infinitesimal, is it possible that the monad of those points intersect

11:16 PM
"It is the intersection of all of the standard neighbourhoods of p"
Hm
I think not