The h Bar

0celouvskyopoulo7

2:01 PM

(and by sard's theorem you can omit the points where $\nabla f=0$ on the right)

Phase

Isn't every system thermodynamic in the fact that you could assign entropy to any physical system?

wait

does von neumann entropy count here

prolly

AccidentalFourierTransform

if $g_i$ are the generators of $G$, then we say that $G$ is generated by $g_i$, and $\mathfrak{g}$ is "..." by $g_i$

"..."=spanned?

ACuriousMind

@AccidentalFourierTransform yup

AccidentalFourierTransform

k

Slereah

@Secret all exact path integrals are in Grosche's handbook of path integrals

Phase

2:14 PM

uh, dumb question

Emilio Pisanty

@ACuriousMind Also, people who use $-$ for set difference are irredeemably wrong and should be expelled from science.

God gave you $\setminus$ for a reason.

Albert Einstein

@Yashas, second one is enthalpy

Yashas

Enthalpy = U + PV

Slereah

Setminus is bad though

Too slanted

Yashas

dH = dU + d(PV) = dU + PdV + VdP

ACuriousMind

2:15 PM

@EmilioPisanty I'm an ardent follower of $-$ - you just started a holy war!

Slereah

I prefer set substraction to be slightly askew -

Emilio Pisanty

@ACuriousMind =P

Secret

I prefer $-$ to \ because \ is easily confused with $/$

Phase

Are scalars literally just one dimensional vectors? I just had memories of kiddo school and covering vectors and scalars, and it seems abhorrently wrong. I can't think of anything distinguishing them plus they're bijective

Emilio Pisanty

$A-B$ is reserved for $\{a-b: a\in A,\ b\in B\}$

Albert Einstein

2:16 PM

@Yashas, entropy

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret to the extent that $A$ is easily confused with $\forall$, yes

Secret

O so there's a difference, I see

Yashas

for reversible reactions, entropy is defined as dS = dq/T

Slereah

Scalars form a vector space yes

Since they obey all axioms of a vector space

Yashas

Entropy can also be defined as the number of ways of arranging the system

S = k log W

Emilio Pisanty

2:17 PM

@Secret It's not \, it's $\setminus$

normally on more of a 45° slant

Slereah

Scalar fields are defined by a vector bondle

The line bundle

With fiber R or C

Emilio Pisanty

@ACuriousMind If I'm reading that definition correctly, homotopy equivalence requires a homeomorphism

ACuriousMind

@EmilioPisanty No - every homeomorphism is an equivalence, but there are far more such equivalences than homeomorphism. Basically, homotopy equivalent spaces should be thought of as spaces that can be continuously deformed into each other by shrinking or expanding parts (even expanding a point into some n-dimensional ball, or vice versa!)

Albert Einstein

@Yashas, ideal gas

Yashas

@AlbertEinstein Check kinetic theory of gases for the assumptions

Emilio Pisanty

2:21 PM

@ACuriousMind hmmmm

oh, ok

you only require that $f\circ g$ be homotopical to the identity

maybe link to a description that makes that clear?

and yes, explaining why it's homotopy that matters wouldn't be amiss there

Also, this might could be shortened.

ACuriousMind

@EmilioPisanty Changed it, but not really shortened it :P I'll think about how to explain the relevance of homotopy better - it's really just because it was more convenient to argue on the $S^2$ than on the punctured $\mathbb{R}^3$, but I see how one might be confused about why that's allowed

Abcd

How to do this question:

An eye specialist prescribes spectacles having combination of convex length of focal length 40 cm in contact with concave lens of focal length 25 cm coaxially. The power of this lens combination in dioptres is _____ ?

My Solution:

Add the two powers after calculating them using P = 1/f

Is this method correct?

Secret

O great, I think I don't understand bell inequality, I need to re-study it again

Too many physics people tell me today that it is not the correlated outcomes of the observables get transported between the subsystems (which has no information), but it is which pair of outcomes that will pop out after the measurement (which also has no information)

now combined this with:

Your marble experiment does not violate Bell's Theorem (or any other theorem of classical probability) and is therefore quite entirely irrelevant to the issue here. The wave function does not count as a hidden variable because it cannot *determinstically predict the outcomes of all measurements. In your marble experiment, we can easily explain the result by invoking some determinstic (though mysterious) force. — WillO Apr 29 at 15:47

so back to the drawing board I go

I wonder if entanglement is really something that violates my "A interact with B" mindset, which might explain why I keep making mistakes on it

Slereah

Bell's inequality isn't really even a physics thing

It's related to probability theory

Phase

2:37 PM

uh

Entanglement isnt long range interaction though is it?

Secret

Well, its (bell inequality) violation is, and that is what I am trying to understand what has happened there. I have heard the magic square example as an elaboration, but it still feel really magical to me, like, exactly when is that correlation establish, and why is that not classical (other than showing that some number is larger than $2$)

Phase

It's just two, spatially separated particles being described by a non-seperable wavefunction isn't it?

Secret

That's how it is said, but then that will imply the correlation is already there the moment you start makeing the wavefuncton of the two subsystems inseparable (at least that's what I thought)

Phase

But "interaction"

doesn't that imply there's something mediating it

Secret

and logically, the next step on that thought process will then be every possible pairs of outcomes (and their superpositions) become correlated, thus this deduction will then cause me to think of it is still randomly selecting one of the pairs from this sample space of noncommutative probabilities

this will then cause me to conclude that the measurement is not very mysterious since the correlation is already established throughout the wavefunction when some interaction that entangle the particles make their wavefunction inseparable

But

WillO (and later on many of my physics friends) said this is the wrong way to understand what happens in entanglement

ACuriousMind

2:42 PM

You talk about "correlation" as if it is something that "exists". But "correlation" just means that certain outcomes are, well, correlated. I don't get what you're talking about.

Phase

honestly

i'd just take the same approach to the collapse of an entangled state as I would a normal single particle wavefunction

just with a few extra conditions like the angular momentum needing to balance out if it's a pair made by a photon with 0 angular momentum or something

Secret

Well, the way I think about e.g. the singlet state is that since neither subsystems can be represented as a state vector, but must be an ensemble represented by the reduced density matrix, and that I knew that measuring any spin along any of the axes will always give anticorrelated results, this naturally cause me to have the conception that all possible pairs of spin in all directions are already anticorrelated once the two particles become entangled and the wavefunction becomes inseparable
and thus the measurement only end up picking randomly one of the correlated pairs and becomes the ou…

so you still have the result that the outcomes don't exists until you measure it, but the correlations are already encoded in the wavefunction

Phase

Im confused though

ACuriousMind

@Secret The whole point of (the standard interpretation of) quantum mechanics is that the "pairs of spin in all directions" don't exist prior to measurement. It doesn't make sense to talk about their correlation before you have measured them.

Saying "the spins don't exist but their correlations do" is just playing meaningless word games, in my opinion. In the entangled state it is encoded that the spins, if measured, will be (anti-)correlated. Seeking for "where" or "when" this correlation comes about is not really a question whose meaning I can understand.

Secret

So basically when we say we entangle two particles, there is no way to know they are entangled (have inseparable wavefunction) until the correlation is established by measuring it?

Emilio Pisanty

2:53 PM

@Secret No, Bell-inequality violations are not a long-range interaction.

@Secret that is correct

ACuriousMind

@Secret You can never "know" what state a system is in without measuring it (the measurement can be crafty, as in state tomography, but it's still a measurement).

Phase

wait

Emilio Pisanty

Moreover, there is no way to know whether the preparation procedure produces entangled pairs without multiple, different measurements on an ensemble of systems.

Phase

@ACuriousMind so you can't know a system is entangled before measuring it, but how can you be certain that a system was entangled after you've measured one of them?

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase you can't.

ACuriousMind

2:55 PM

@Phase A single measurement rarely tells you anything about a state

Phase

oh for fucks sake

ACuriousMind

you need to take an ensemble of identically prepared states and measure them all

Emilio Pisanty

...and, in addition, you need correlated measurements for that to work

Secret

@ACuriousMind Ok... that's , a very new concept to me. In the past I knew that outcomes don't exists until we measure it, but I previously not aware that even the correlation itself don't exists until we measure it

Emilio Pisanty

local measurements confined to one of the subsystems are incapable of providing any information about entanglement.

Phase

2:56 PM

Ok so wait

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret correlation is a description of measurement outcomes

of course it doesn't exist until you measure

Phase

The standard answer for the FTL entanglement paradox is that the person measuring the particle can't be sure that it wasn't collapsed / interacted with before measurement, right?

user228700

Hey, @Johnr :-) YHM.

Phase

nevermind

I just realised why what I was about to say was dumb

Secret

Yeah, I always thought the wavefunction being inseparable already somehow contain those correlations that can manifest when a measurement take place, but it appears there is no way to know whether the wavefunction is even inseparable before measuring it

John Rennie

2:58 PM

@Kaumudi.H not arrived yet, but it can take a little while to escape the Indian subcontinent ...

user228700

:-)

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret that is ultimately interpretation-dependent. The wavefunction may well physically exist, but any information about it is inaccessible to you until and unless you measure.

AccidentalFourierTransform

@Kaumudi.H hey, how are you feeling?

user228700

@AccidentalFourierTransform Hey! :-) I feel much better. Thanks so much for asking!

AccidentalFourierTransform

ah, good!

Phase

2:59 PM

You're all a bunch of math-savvy topology folks right? Is there any physical / mathematical actual argument to support MWI or is it just a pure hypothesis?

Emilio Pisanty

To the extent that it does exist, though, for an entangled pair, it is a nonlocal quantity that nevertheless cannot be used for communication.

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H got it, thanks. I'm with you on this one.

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase What do you mean by "physical argument to support MWI"?

user228700

Wokay, thanks! :-)

Emilio Pisanty

MWI is a terrible name, though

I just tend to call it "QM taken at face value".

Phase

3:01 PM

@EmilioPisanty Everett Interpretation then, and by physical argument I mean an experiment that can be explained usefully by it

ACuriousMind

@Phase I have never seen an actual argument that would support any interpretation, but then I'm starting to think I'm just a grumpy operationalist who doesn't care :P

Secret

@EmilioPisanty I am ok with that no communication point (given I have ran through no communicaton theorem at least thrice), but what acuriousmind said about the correlation is only established at the moment of measurement, and not within the wavefunction due to it being made inseperable by some interaction (even in interpretations where it physically exists) is what is new to me

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase oh, all of quantum mechanics.

An experiment that can only be explained usefully by MWI and not by other interpretations? No.

That's why we call them interpretations.

Phase

@EmilioPisanty how does the Everett interpretation explain weird things like youngs slits?

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase the same way QM does

ACuriousMind

3:02 PM

@Secret I think we have a language issue here: By definition, a "correlation" is a pattern in measurement outcomes. A pattern in X cannot meaningfully "exist" before X exists, can it?

Phase

ok lemme ask this:

What's the difference between Many-worlds when you only consider one universe, and immediately forget any ones that branch off, and Copenhagen?

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret What ACM just said. You can play word games and try to add meanings to the word "correlation" if you want to, but you're just fooling yourself that you've understood things.

@Phase How do you decide that a wavefunction component has "branched off"?

i.e. what objective criterion do you use?

Phase

@EmilioPisanty I thought the whole point about MWI is that each different outcome happens, but the universes diverge into their own, self contained ones to accomodate each outcome

Secret

@ACuriousMind I was thinking about something like: (Using an interpretation where the wavefunction is physical) In an inseparable wavefunction $\psi (a,b)$, the probability amplitudes for all a,b are already correlated in a way such that it result in the measurements to give the correlated outcomes as expected. That's what I mean by "correlations already exists") I am not sure what thoguht process I got wrong for thinking about the correlation exists at the level of probability amplitudes forany a,b

ACuriousMind

I don't know what a "correlation of probability amplitudes" is.

Emilio Pisanty

3:06 PM

@Phase yeah, well. Self-contained unless conditions bring them to indistinguishable states, in which case they can interfere destructively.

Phase

@EmilioPisanty Universes can interfere with each other? How do conservation laws work?

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase how does the second question relate to the first?

Slereah

Oh boy

I got a letter from CERN!

I wonder what it is!

(It's the PDG booklet)

The 2016 booklet, the last paper one they will ever print

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret From a $\psi$-ontic perspective, that is a crude understanding but it can be mapped into something correct.

Phase

@EmilioPisanty Because wouldn't interacting universes change energies of the system?

Or do you just treat it like adding the two together

or something

ACuriousMind

3:09 PM

@Slereah Wow, they finally sent it to you?

Slereah

Well, not everything

I ordered the booklet and the book

Emilio Pisanty

However, decreeing that a nonlocal $\psi$ has physical existence is pretty meaningless, because you can't say anything about it that's operationally meaningful until and unless you measure.

Slereah

I wonder what's new in it

Probably the LHC results

And the PLANCK results

Last one I got was the 2006 booklet

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase yeah, particularly the 'or something' =P. It's probability amplitudes that add/substract, not energies.

Slereah

Indeed there is now a mass for the Higgs!

$m = 125.09 \pm 0.24 \text{GeV}$

Emilio Pisanty

3:11 PM

If $\hat A$ is conserved in the evolution, only states with the same $A$ can interfere.

Physics Meta

0

Q: Physycs Stackexchange rules?

"If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here. However, if your motivation is “I would like others to explain ______ to me”, then you are probably OK." And the website at the same time has a "homework...

Phase

@EmilioPisanty Is that where the vacuum ground state comes from?

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase I have no idea what you're talking about, sorry.

@Slereah you should get the first one and put them together

Secret

@EmilioPisanty A bit confused here, why a nonlocal physical $\psi$ has no operational meaning until a measurement took place?

Slereah

@EmilioPisanty well it's the same book

So

user228700

3:12 PM

@JohnR: I've just had pizza in a sandwich, BTW!

Emilio Pisanty

@Secret because no $\psi$ has operational meaning until a measurement takes place.

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H I used to eat all sorts of thinks in sandwiches. Meat pie sandwiches was my finest hour.

user228700

Meat pie sandwiches, hmm, I see :-|

Emilio Pisanty

@Slereah so it's not like the CRC handbook?

Secret

@EmilioPisanty Ah I see. I guess that's the concept I have been missing for all these years

Slereah

3:14 PM

Look at this baby

user228700

Oh, what the heck, did u actually stuff pies in between two slices of bread?!

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H Have you ever had a calzone? It's kind of a sandwich made from a pizza.

Emilio Pisanty

Phase

@EmilioPisanty you're talking about destructive interference, so I was wondering if that leads to a sort of quantum-noise, like the vacuum ground state

The virtual particles

Slereah

@EmilioPisanty Well, the PDG book is like that

Emilio Pisanty

3:14 PM

in my uni library back home they had a first-edition reprint

Slereah

The booklet is a tiny version of the book

Emilio Pisanty

it actually fits in your hand

Slereah

I think the book itself is 1800 pages

Emilio Pisanty

they put it next to the 95th edition or so

Slereah

But they haven't sent it yet

John Rennie

3:15 PM

@Kaumudi.H yes

Slereah

I kinda want to buy the CRC but it costs a gold bullion

Emilio Pisanty

@Phase Sorry, as far as I can tell that's an incoherent jumble of concepts.

user228700

@JohnRennie Unfortunately, no, I haven't yet had calzones. But they're available in a store next door so maybe I will try it soon!

Emilio Pisanty

@Slereah it can't be more expensive than Prudnikov, though, can it?

user228700

@JohnRennie Whoa. I'm mystified and also literally LOL x'D

Slereah

3:16 PM

@EmilioPisanty What is Prudnikov

0celouvskyopoulo7

Are we bragging about books?

Phase

@EmilioPisanty :/

Slereah

Yes we are

Tell us about your fancy books, @0celouvskyopoulo7

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H they were very nice, though the filling in the pie tends to dribble down your chin.

0celouvskyopoulo7

@yuggib probably wins

Emilio Pisanty

3:17 PM

@Slereah amazon.com/Integrals-Elementary-Functions-Special/dp/2881240976/…

0celouvskyopoulo7

He has all of Bourbaki, Reed-Simon, and Hörmander

Emilio Pisanty

that's volume one, there's five

Slereah

@EmilioPisanty I have the other book

The one by... Gradhkin?

I forget his name

Emilio Pisanty

because there's only two books ever?

@Slereah presumably you mean Gradshteyn and Ryzhik

Slereah

that's the one

user228700

3:18 PM

@JohnRennie Nice! :-) BTW, I didn't put a slice of pizza in b/w slices of bread. I cheated you with that sentence because what I did was, I spread some pizza spread on the slices and put pieces of cucumber in b/w.

Slereah

I'm not sure there are more than two books like that :p

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H though I'm currently munching my way through a kg of apples in an attempt to eat a bit more healthily.

Slereah

That there are two is already amazing

Emilio Pisanty

ultimately, though, there's things like this one

amazon.com/…

Slereah

Well yeah but if we start looking at engineering books

John Rennie

3:19 PM

@Kaumudi.H if you like that you will love calzone!

Secret

A simple example: consider $\Psi(a,b)=\psi (a)\psi (b)$ vs anantisymmetric $\Phi(a,b)$. Picking any ordered pair (a,b) the former does not show any correlation to the function value, but for the later, since $\Phi (a,b)=-\Phi (b,a)$ by antisymmetry, the graph of $\Phi (a,b)$ has a symmetry under inversion about the line $a=b$ (where the amplitude must be zero because zero is the only number that is neither positive nor negative), while amplitudes at any (a,b) will always be the negative of (b,a) hence there's a correlation between any two points on the graph with that relationship

Emilio Pisanty

a fifteen-volume set, but still

amazon.com/…

Slereah

Then that's another conversation

John Rennie

Calzone

A calzone (/kælˈzoʊni/, US /kælˈzoʊneɪ/ or /kælˈzoʊn/, UK /kælˈtsoʊni/; Italian: [kalˈtsoːne], "stocking" or "trouser") is an Italian oven-baked folded pizza that originated in Naples. A typical calzone is made from salted bread dough, baked in an oven and stuffed with salami or ham, mozzarella, ricotta and Parmesan or pecorino cheese, as well as an egg. Different regional variations on a calzone can often include other ingredients that are normally associated with pizza toppings. == Regional variations == === In Italy === Sandwich-sized calzones are often sold at Italian lunch counters...

Slereah

I know that some material physics books are 10.000 pages long and cost thousands of dollars

user228700

3:20 PM

@JohnRennie Oh, nice! :-) Man, I wish I could do things like that.

Slereah

also

Emilio Pisanty

@Slereah A minor but very definite achievement in my career so far is no. 469 here

Slereah

Compared to the 2006 particle handbook

This one is in color

Well, a little color

The graphs have colors

user228700

@JohnRennie Yeah, I liked it :-) Wokay, I'll try it and tell you!

Slereah

@EmilioPisanty which integral did you do

Was it $\int 1 dx$

Emilio Pisanty

3:21 PM

@Slereah I caught a misprint

John Rennie

I hadn't realised that calzone means trousers. It brings a whole new meaning to the phrase eat my pants.

@Kaumudi.H eat apples?

Slereah

It is cognates with french "caleçon", underwear

Let's check the GR section

Emilio Pisanty

@Slereah 2.477.9 and 2.477.10, according to my records

user228700

@JohnRennie Hadn't heard that phrase before :-/

Slereah

"Big bang cosmology"

Albert Einstein

3:22 PM

@yashas , The amount of heat required will be minimium if it is heated through:

1. 1K

2. 1°C

3. 1°F

4. Same for all

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H never watched The Simpsons?

user228700

@JohnRennie Well, yeah eat a bag of apples for lunch, I mean.

user228700

@JohnRennie Nope, not even one episode :-|

Slereah

$$\Omega = 1.000 \pm 0.005$$

how will we ever know if we are globally flat

Emilio Pisanty

there was just no chance that was correct

Slereah

3:25 PM

There is indeed the PLANCK results in the booklet

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H apples aren't very nutritious. That's fine for me because it helps me recover from eating like a pig at the weekend, but for a teenager I think it's a road to malnutrition.

user228700

@JohnRennie But I certainly think that I could do with more meals consisting of fruit, rather than, you know, bread and spreads.

Slereah

Apparently one accelerator is called the KEK

John Rennie

1kg of apples contains only 500 calories. You'd need to eat 4kg a day to stay alive.

Slereah

aka the superKEKB

user228700

3:27 PM

@JohnRennie Hey, no one is proposing that I take up this "1 meal a day" habit like you! :-P

0celouvskyopoulo7

@JohnRennie wot

you don't need 2000 cal a day to stay alive

Slereah

www-superkekb.kek.jp

0celouvskyopoulo7

Some people eat 1200 and gain weight

Slereah

why are people kissing the LHC's ass but nobody speaks of the KEK

It collides electrons and positrons at 7 GeV

Pretty nice

0celouvskyopoulo7

@Slereah I have all of Spivak, which is nice

user228700

3:29 PM

@0celouvskyopoulo7 WebMD doesn't agree...

0celouvskyopoulo7

I don't have all of Hörmander, but I probably should just buy the last one while it's on sale

Slereah

@0celouvskyopoulo7 you can frame them

They make nice art

John Rennie

@0celouvskyopoulo7 AFT has an emoticon that nicely expresses my view of that statement.

user228700

@JohnRennie Huh?

0celouvskyopoulo7

@JohnRennie Don't let your balls sway in the wind. A sheep might come by and kick them.

@Slereah I don't have all of Weinberg, but I do have Weinberg's GR book which is rare

oh, @JohnRennie

John Rennie

3:32 PM

@Kaumudi.H it's, erm, something that AFT got banned for posting. I'm not sure I dare repost it here :-)

0celouvskyopoulo7

best thermo book

user228700

@JohnRennie Accidental Fourier Transform! Ah, I was wondering what the heck you were talking about.

user228700

Hang on, whoa whoa, he got banned for posting it?! Wow, OK...

John Rennie

This is relevant:

2 hours ago, by ACuriousMind

I swear, if this is a setup for some ASCII testicles again...

user228700

Yes yes, I saw that before x'D

0celouvskyopoulo7

3:34 PM

I should put that on my quotes page for my thesis

Slereah

Perhaps this picture would fit better

John Rennie

@Kaumudi.H well, not a ban, it was the automatic 30 minute suspension when one of your posts gets flagged.

user228700

Ah, OK.

0celouvskyopoulo7

God I want Pizza

@JohnRennie are you unimpressed by that book?

John Rennie

@0celouvskyopoulo7 I read about the index theorem but largely failed to understand it, so its potential applications to thermodynamics don't leave me hot and slippery.

0celouvskyopoulo7

3:36 PM

@JohnRennie The thermo was a joke, but it's that book I wanted

the one from the UK

the heat equation has largely nothing to do with heat

unlike the wave equation that really does have to do with waves

John Rennie

Ah, you've got it then. Cool :-)

£200 well spent I'm sure!

0celouvskyopoulo7

@JohnRennie My lease was 200 less than expected so it worked out

@JohnRennie that's questionable

I wonder if I'll have time to read it

I should be reading right now, but meh

John Rennie

@0celouvskyopoulo7 If you're made homeless at least you'll have something to read :-)

0celouvskyopoulo7

Apparently our local scientology center was shut down!

Slereah

where will you go to get audited now

Secret

3:42 PM

[Philosophy random] My conception of exists = anything that can be mapped into some kind of parameter space

this is because anything that look like space is somehow more tangible to me in that I can manipulate them mentally

0celouvskyopoulo7

does consciousness exist?

Secret

probably, but we don't know the exact types of parameters

we knew a few neuro circuitry but nothing is conclusive yet

rob

@0celouvskyopoulo7 "I like to think so," he said self-referentially

Secret

So in short, most knowledge look like space to me, and that is how I remember and learn things

Nothingness trivially exists under this weird conception because emptiness is obviously space look like

Exercise: Now you can understand why I tend to wrongly think the wavefunction is a kind of "stuff"

John Rennie

You need to drink more. The problem of consciousness is easily solved by the application of lots of alcohol.

2

0celouvskyopoulo7

3:48 PM

that's sick, John

alcohol is not good

ACuriousMind

Right, it's not good, it's great.

Add some sugar in it

it's bad for you

It will taste better

@Slereah yes, I always put two teaspoons of sugar in my champagne.

It's too sour otherwise.

Slereah

3:49 PM

Well I meant more some fruit juice with vodka :p

John Rennie

@Slereah I really don't understand why people drink vodka.

0celouvskyopoulo7

Why does everyone insist on being an alcoholic?

Slereah

It's mostly alcohol?

0celouvskyopoulo7

It must be very good

John Rennie

It has little flavour (apart from the speciality vodkas) and all it does is get you drunk.

Slereah

3:51 PM

Well yes

That is all I ask of alcohol

I find wine and beer to be terrible tasting

John Rennie

You could drink a fine red wine or an excellent English beer and really enjoy getting plastered.

Slereah

I couldn't

I tried

0celouvskyopoulo7

@JohnRennie or drink 5 shots of whiskey like a man

John Rennie

Instead people drink an expensive vaguely fruity mixer with vodka. Pointless.

Slereah

All my friends told me that I didn't like beer because I haven't tasted a REAL beer, that is, the brand they like

It's always terrible

ACuriousMind

3:52 PM

Whiskey does not deserve to be drunk as shots.

0celouvskyopoulo7

@ACuriousMind well excuse me we can't all afford $50/bottle whiskey

AccidentalFourierTransform

Whiskey does not deserve to be drunk.

John Rennie

@Slereah It's not compulsory to like beer. Personally I love a good beer, and because it isn't as strong as wine I can drink a lot more of it.

0celouvskyopoulo7

ban @AccidentalFourierTransform

Slereah

I also don't like wine

Or cognac

Or rum

I can tolerate sweet cider

0celouvskyopoulo7

3:53 PM

what kind of frenchman are you

AccidentalFourierTransform

we have a french that doesnt like wine, and an englishman that doesnt like tea

Slereah

I don't even like cheese

John Rennie

I don't like whisky very much. I'd choose a brandy over whisky any day.

0celouvskyopoulo7

@AccidentalFourierTransform I'm an american who doesn't like football

ACuriousMind

@0celouvskyopoulo7 It's not the price - but I wouldn't drink "bad" whiskey in any form and I don't think drinking it as a shot does the "good" whiskey justice

AccidentalFourierTransform

3:54 PM

please tell me that 0celo7 doesnt like guns and ACM doesnt like refugees

0celouvskyopoulo7

Oh I love guns

Arm the students.

John Rennie

There's a French apple brandy that is excellent - the name escapes me at the moment, probably due to all those brain cells being killed by drinking.

0celouvskyopoulo7

Arm the teachers.

Secret

in Mathematics, 2 mins ago, by Eric Stucky