00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00

Anonymous
5:00 PM
Yeah, it seems he had made some very weird assumptions and theories to explain refraction and diffraction. I found a textbook which says: "Newton assumed that when a light corpuscle comes within a very small limiting distance from the refracting surface, it begins to experience a force of attraction towards the surface"

Anonymous
Except this time the force of attraction wasn't "gravity"! :P

Pretty hard to make a classical theory of light

Anonymous
He developed some non-trivial geometry results in the process though

Geometry was the cool thing to do back then
Using coordinates was a new thing!

-1

A recent answer and subsequent comment discussion revealed there are possibly many bogus science sources on the web that are apparently invading the SE network. I understand that downvoting plays a key role in keeping this kind of information in check, but it seem like it might be beneficial to h...

5:03 PM
It's hard enough making a wikipeda of accurate science. Curating a wiki of all the ways one can do science wrong seems even harder.

that's Rational Wiki
and it's not doing a very good job
I should make a page on my site
THE LIES OF GR

It's mostly ridiculous, sometimes it's ok on completely opinionated anti-rational pages :p

Hey folks, SE.QuantumComputing is currently in private beta, having started yesterday. "Private beta" seems like a misnomer, though, since folks can join if they like!
8

Anonymous
@Nat Uh, no. People who hadn't committed can't join at the moment. They'd have to wait for about a month

5:14 PM
I just joined and I didn't commit at all!

Anonymous
@Slereah Really?

Anonymous
Strange

Hi to all. A quick question: Is it completely wrong on the side of results to have a model where the group of transformations on the fields is independent of the base manifold(such that the fields as sections of the bundle are transformed under the group g and g is independent of the base manifold).
That way we do not care about gauge symmetry; I mean, could we get correct results that way, like thinking prior to Yang-Mills ?

Anonymous
I tried creating another account in Incognito mode, but it's not working

@Blue I tried it from another computer that wasn't logged in before making that claim. =P

Anonymous
5:15 PM
Anyway, if you can join, that's very good news

@ConstantineBlack I think all reasonable fields are at the very least tensor sections
They may have internal symmetries on top
But they still need to transform with coordinates

Anonymous
@Nat I see. I starred your message so that others can see :)

Anonymous
The new site's going strong

Hah it's definitely a fun topic.
@Blue Random curiosity if you care to share, what sort of background/field are you from?
@Blue Erm, right, strike that; I remember now.

@Slereah I'm discussing this internal symmetries; if for example I compute a feynman diagram with a lagrangian that has a global symmetry and not a local one( so the structure group of the bundle is independent of the base), will I take a completely wrong result, or that could be a case of a very certain gauge?

5:19 PM
What do you mean by "independant of the base"
do you mean that there's no Lorentz group structure to the bundle?
Like you just have a random vector bundle instead of the tangent bundle?

Anonymous
@Nat I had shared it in the QC chat :)

Anonymous

I have a vector bundle that describes the internal degrees of freedom and the fields are sections of this bundle;
Example: I have a field f over Minkowski spacetime and a structure group g with a representation r on the fibres which are vector spaces for the fields and I have that:
: f'(x) = g f(x) , g is independent of x.
Maybe something I write doesn't make sense?

I mean, if you just have a global symmetry

I don't think of the Lorentz transformations of the fields.

5:24 PM
There's no need to involve bundles

What do you mean?

@Blue In the US, completed grad school a bit ago. Did a bunch of Science/Engineering degrees, plus an MBA to kinda prepare for the business side of things. I'm basically a Singularitarianist, so I'm working to create computational systems to effect general intelligence.

Local symmetries are done with the structure group of the fiber bundle
But
as far as I know, this isn't true of global symmetries

Anonymous

Anonymous
CS?

5:28 PM
@Nat No thanks, I don't want to create a black hole when I use my computer
Wait in seriousness, beta sites can now get designs?

@SirCumference quantum computing is just that awesome

@Slereah My how things have changed.
In the current political climate the Confederate Jack in the background looks ... somehow off. Politically charged or tone deaf

Oh... then maybe I misunderstood something; I thought that a global symmetry was what I was writing above: the independence of the structure group from the base spacetime manifold. I got that impression from Baez's book, on the chapter of gauge symmetry where he argues that what Yang-Mills did waw to demand much more symmetry from the fields, so that g -->g(x) and still have invariant equations.
Thanks anyway. I'll take a look again.

@Blue Most of my personal research is in CS-like topics, but I basically tried to do everything in grad school.
@SirCumference And a sponsorship! If you join, Meta's got a question about how the new SE's got a corporate sponsor. They want to get more sponsors for SE in general (they seem to be having money problems), but they're testing it there.

Ugh, SE's selling out

@ConstantineBlack I'd have to check
Hm
Are sections of the line bundle over the moebius strip globally invariant under reflection

Honestly, call me a pessimist but QC serves pretty tight niche that seems to slightly overlap with CS and TCS.

@SirCumference I've said from the beginning that most QC questions could be asked either here or on CS/TCS, but apparently that's not stopped people from thinking yet another SE site is a good idea :P

I'm kinda skeptical of the whole StackExchange model to begin with. I mean, I've got like 100 SE accounts now for different topics, and the number of SE's just keeps growing. It'd almost be nicer if they reformed the concept of scope limitations to be more like the tagging system.

@Qmechanic I'm doubtful of this benefit - how many users scroll down the entire front page now, don't click through to the second page, but would scroll down double the amount of questions?

5:43 PM
Besides the advantage for users - by which I mean, it's annoying to have only a bit of rep on each site - there're topics that don't cleanly fit into one SE vs. another. The solution seems to be to dissolve those arbitrary boundaries and instead have more of a mesh-like network, loosely separated by tagging. But, I guess that that'd invite complexity issues for many users.
I guess that that might conflict a bit with their new business model, though. And given their fiscal concerns, I suppose that they'll prefer to focus on getting some stability before experimenting with a change in network topology.

Anonymous
@Nat I don't seem to like huge sites with everything mixed up for some reason

Looking at the questions in the Definition state makes me wonder why so many people upvote >10 questions

Anonymous
But that said, I do feel there are too many software sites which could be merged with SO

@Blue SO is not about software, but about programming. The other sites (like SuperUser) were created specifically because their content was not really welcomed on SO.

5:49 PM
Honestly, SE could've just had a single site for programming, and a single site for comp sci

@JohnRennie are you around ?

Anonymous
@ACuriousMind Well, but still I do see lot of software (not programming) questions on SO everyday

@Blue Yeah, they'd need to make an appropriate interface for interacting with the combined network that could allow users the experiences they like, e.g. users who like the current views would ideally be able to basically retain 'em.

@ACuriousMind At the very least, SuperUser is a bit unique in that it's mostly focused on shortcuts and things to take advantage of
But programming, code review, etc. could all be made sections of SO

Anonymous
Yeah, especially code review

5:51 PM
We also don't need two math sites or two computer science sites, but there's no use in arguing it

@SirCumference The TCS/CS split has a similar history to the MO/math.SE split. Emilio has a wonderful meta post here with an overview of the history and reasons.

Who would have thought you would find a statement of the Kodaira embedding theorem in a physics video lecture

@SirCumference You need to think about sites more in terms of userbases, and especially the people who answer. The kind of person who enjoys answering short, well-defined programming questions is not necessarily the same kind of person willing to invest a lot of time open-endedly criticizing someone else's code, and is again different from the kind of person who enjoys arguing about software engineering practices in the abstract
Specific people may fall into all three categories, but the Venn diagram is very much not a single circle :P

@ACuriousMind Perhaps. But then again, SO is a massive and diverse userbase in its own right, far larger than the entire SE network combined. I can't say certainly, but I could imagine it working
If even a small percentage of its userbase were interested in reviewing code or arguing about software engineering practices, that may be sufficient

@SirCumference That small percentage is persumably already a large part of the users on these sites. I don't see what benefit would come from throwing everything back into a single pot.

Anonymous
6:01 PM
@SirCumference BTW the thing about the QC site is that probably it will attract people from mathematics, physics, electrical engineering as well as computer science. It's quite interdisciplinary and a growing field, so I personally feel that it needs a site of its own owing to the interdisciplinary nature. It's better than scattering the topic over a range of different sites.

@Blue I still don't see how it avoids overlapping with CS/TCS

Anonymous
@SirCumference Sure, it does overlap.

Anonymous
But as ACM said for the programming/software sites, the Venn diagram is surely not a single circle

I suppose. I'm just speaking from experience that many sites have been short lived for this reason.
Language learning, astronomy (sorta), etc.

Anonymous
Well, those aren't "growing" fields as such

6:07 PM
Quite the insult to LIGO :P

Anonymous
Nor are they interdisciplinary

Ooh, @Blue has gone away from The Dark Side™

Anonymous
Engineers don't do astronomy

Anonymous
Nor mathematicians as such

Anonymous
@Sid Heh, yeah

Anonymous
6:08 PM
How's it?

@Blue Well the ones who do go here :P

Anonymous
That's a good site!

Anonymous
Although looks a little low on traffic

It's also a matter of how many questions new users can think of. Compare with physics, where new users are commonly coming up with question about everyday life. I'm not too sure how many can be done with quantum computing.
Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, but that's just my worries

Anonymous
I'm indeed expecting the QC site's question rate to slow down gradually, but SE is supporting it and it's being sponsored so it's not gonna be a disastrous failure for sure

6:16 PM
0

Hubble s constant, which is a measure of the rate of expansion of the universe, is in units of speed per unit length. It can be thought of as the speed of increase in the circumference of the universe divided by the length of the circumference of the universe. H = 2 pi c /2 pi R or after reducing...

Low quality?

@Nat hi, welcome, hope Quantum Computing makes it... hadnt heard about SE "new business model"/ "fiscal concerns" can you elaborate on that?

Anonymous
20

I recently announced a pilot program we are trying on Quantum Computing Stack Exchange, but rather than pointing you elsewhere, I decided to re-post the original announcement here. Enjoy! Sponsorship Pilot — Bringing resources BACK to Stack Exchange As our devs continue to work on features li...

@Blue fyi hate to break it to you/ burst anyones bubble but actually there is a history of failed SE openings but SE doesnt archive them, hence quite a bit of mod skepticism. the new groups also basically compete with prior ones wrt subscribers. "sink or swim..." some "failed" SE site questions have been migrated to existing sites, saw that happen awhile back with Computer Science.

Anonymous
@vzn I am quite aware of that. But I guess I'm a big believer of trying out new things. Doesn't matter if the site fails. Life goes on as usual

"The hardest mathematics is counting because there is no shortcut for it"
What this textbook says

6:31 PM
what's the shortcut for category theory

I'm paraphrasing a bit but doesn't addition count?

@Blue yes do wish myself it was easier to launch new groups and attract particular audiences, but over years realized thats somewhat the tail wagging the dog... notice how few chat rooms on SE have much activity, even major topics like Computer Science are rather low traffic/ quiet. (have long wished theyd promote the chat rooms more.) but anyway just the launch of Quantum Computing is significant because very few new groups make it out of Area 51... (aptly named!) o_O

Anonymous
@SirCumference What book?

Very few groups make it out of Area 51 because most of the proposals are ill-defined or crackpottery :P

@Blue Some astronomy one,"Phase: a state of matter that is 'uniform throughout, not only in chemical composition but also in physical state.'

Anonymous
6:38 PM
Strange book

Sigh I thought I pasted the book name
hold on
@Slereah Seems to be working when I disconnect from my uni's internet
Weird

Maybe they have a filter

@Nat how come a private beta is themed?

Perhaps they filter my website due to the graphic nudity

20

I recently announced a pilot program we are trying on Quantum Computing Stack Exchange, but rather than pointing you elsewhere, I decided to re-post the original announcement here. Enjoy! Sponsorship Pilot — Bringing resources BACK to Stack Exchange As our devs continue to work on features li...

6:46 PM
@SirCumference yeah, figures

I find it very annoying not to be able to read that post without joining the beta :P

Anonymous

Anonymous
(Knowingly or unknowingly)

I have no interest in joining - I have no expertise in quantum computing and currently no questions.

Anonymous
That's fair enough

6:48 PM
@ACuriousMind You don't need to know anything or contribute to join a site :P

Now
Build a GR computer

It's free and they throw in 100 internet points

and we're talking

Anonymous
@ACuriousMind I could copy it the text to a google doc for you if you wish to read it without joining

6:49 PM
@SirCumference Sure, but the site doesn't derive any benefit from it either, and I'd forever have that useless account in my network accounts list.

Anonymous
I recently announced a pilot program we are trying on Quantum Computing Stack Exchange, but rather than pointing you elsewhere, I decided to re-post the original announcement here. Enjoy!

Sponsorship Pilot — Bringing resources BACK to Stack Exchange
As our devs continue to work on features like Talent and Channels (now called Teams), I've been anxiously looking for ways to increase engagement in our current Stack Exchange sites to help assure that development RETURNS to our Q&As… as soon as possible.

Anonymous
Here ^

@Slereah That'll build a black hole and we'll all die

@Blue Eh, I can wait until it's out of private beta :P

Not every GR solution is a black hole

6:50 PM
build a blackhole?

@ACuriousMind Until you delete it, but I guess so

what are the raw materials a black hole is made of
then

@diobuceulb Evil :P

mass

i wonder how the blueprints would look like

Anonymous
6:51 PM
@ACuriousMind Nowadays you can immediately delete SE sites which you join, if you have no posts there

Anonymous
I had tried it last month

@diobuceulb I think we've been over this

@ACuriousMind Here's a re-post of it on the main SE Meta: "Sponsorship Pilot — Bringing resources BACK to Stack Exchange".

@Blue actually it was like that since like december 2014
i can confirm

6:52 PM
1) yes
2) no

That is still my favorite question on SE

i still want to read the human female one

@diobuceulb Ahah, I remember that
Then there's the butterfly one

please when one of y’all gets to 10k remember to do that

Anonymous
@SirCumference Awesome :D

6:53 PM
and post it here

Anonymous
I love the first one

@diobuceulb Always take a pic of bad questions, they're nice when you're having a bad day

Anonymous
That one was a bit touchy

last sentence lol
nice

6:55 PM
@Nat Maybe, but the fact that it was posted on physics SE doesn't make much sense

too bad ACM isnt human anyways

And then he responds to the mods with

that kind of rhetoric wont work

Nov 27 '17 at 19:53, by Sir Cumference
@RoryAlsop are you guys really like this or acting? how can you guys be so rude. I wish you be near death and something like this happens with your rescuer, only then will you understand cruel human. — Ram Keswani 2 hours ago

@SirCumference Hah no doubts there. It can be pretty hard to tell the troll posts from the real ones in those cases.

6:57 PM
@Nat JR sums it up pretty well
Nov 27 '17 at 15:06, by John Rennie
@0celo7 Butterflies don't go into comas. It was a dead butterfly. Posting that question showed only that the OP and reality are less related than is normally considered desirable.

I remember the comments on that post...
They were wild.

In all seriousness, those sorts of posts get me. I'm pretty sure that some of them are real while others are troll posts, and I can get really into trying to tell which is which.

@Nat Ah come on, you just gotta laugh at them sometimes. Like these

@SirCumference I hear they are lunatics

The Flat Earth Society is fun, too. The site itself is mostly a comedic bit, as are many of its members. But I'm pretty sure that at least a few members are for-real.

7:00 PM
@SirCumference Why'd you downvote though...

Trying to tell which-is-which there's a big challenge.

we want to encourage this

@SirCumference There needs to be a Meta discussion for these. =P

@Nat Could break the 'be nice' policy...

7:02 PM
@Nat But but... The Earth is flat.

I think I'll stop posting these, but still, they're needed once in a while

@Sid Well, yeah, but no one outside of the New World Order's actually supposed to know that!

tbh flat earth conspiracy just seems kinda boring to me

7:06 PM
I mean, that's what we blow all of that money on chemtrails and water fluoridation for - to keep the population gullible and ignorant to the Earth's flatness! Otherwise, people might try to put hydroelectric dams up around the edges, putting Big Oil out of business. And if we stop "drilling for oil", then we won't have a convenient excuse to plant fake dinosaur bones to trick people into believing in evolution.

important theory

Quick question: is there a significant amount of neutral hydrogen in the Sun's atmosphere?
Compared to an O-type star, that is

Anonymous
@EmilioPisanty Welcome to the site :P

@SirCumference "Neutral", as-in, non-ionized?

7:10 PM
Strange works website is wacky af

@Nat Yep

Anonymous
I'm dying to see more technical posts like yours on the site

Anonymous
In case you're interested do have a look at my question:

Anonymous
6

The strengthened version of the Church-Turing thesis states that: Any algorithmic process can be simulated efficiently using a Turing machine. Now, on page 5 (chapter 1), the book Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition By Michael A. Nielsen, Isaac L. Chuang goes o...

Anonymous
I'm not finding the answers there satisfactory

7:12 PM
@Blue @SirCumference @Nat oh, ffs

@dmckee IIRC you're pretty good with stars, right?

@EmilioPisanty Bahaha

@EmilioPisanty What is that 'q' though...

@Blue Huh, I thought the "noise" thing was pretty straightforward. What else did ya want to know about it?

7:14 PM
@SirCumference Like big, gas-ball, fusion reactors? I had one course in them twenty years ago. Does that qualify for "good with"?

Anonymous
The first answer uses a vague analogy while the second says it's just environmental noise

@dmckee Welp, my only question is: does the Sun have a significant amount of non-ionized hydrogen in its atmosphere, such that this can affect its spectral lines?

@Blue Yup, I wrote the first answer. =P I mean it's cool if you wanted something else, just trying to figure out what that'd be.

Anonymous
I had discussed this earlier with Mithrandir. The noise involved is a more inherent factor of the system.

Anonymous

Anonymous
7:17 PM
Jan 9 at 8:34, by Mithrandir24601
@Blue So, this is another 'general noise type' :) (presumably as a result of uncertainty intrinsic to the system). As a quantum Turing machine uses states (and is entirely equivalent to a classical Turing machine), it's not quite so clear cut as to whether this is taken into account or not. It probably depends how you model the problem or something.

Wait, nvm, it does have a lot of nonionized hydrogen in the chromosphere

@EmilioPisanty "A quantum of solace" would like to disagree

Which do interfere with the spectral lines

Anonymous
Jan 9 at 8:34, by Mithrandir24601
Also remember that you can repeat simulations as many times as you like, so you can recreate the exact state using an ideal quantum simulation, but maybe that's what you're saying. More also: To properly look into this would be very interesting, but would require a fair bit of time delving into it (has anyone properly proven this claim, or is this just another thing that everyone takes for granted?)

Anonymous
I'm pretty sure that it has something to do with noise in the context of information theory

7:19 PM
My phone's touch ID doesn't work with my fingers even straight after redoing it but as soon as I set a fingerprint with my nose it works.
At least I can open my phone like a fool.

@ACuriousMind so, you have no problem with, say, this?
2

@Blue Kinda.. I mean, Information Theory underpins all of this. It's the same concept.

@EmilioPisanty No, I just wanted to pedantically point out that there are situations where quantum is, in fact, a noun :P

Anonymous
@Nat In short I was expecting a more technical answer with references to some relevant papers if possible

Anonymous
I'll wait for a few more days I suppose

7:24 PM
@Blue The concept of noise is a pretty basic one; it's basically whatever obstructs the contextual null state. I suspect that you might be trying to take it as something more specific than what's intended?
I mean, you're right that it's a general, information-theoretic thing. Stuff like thermal noise or quantum uncertainty are just subsets of it.

Anonymous
@Nat Yes, I want some answer to discuss all that explicitly

Anonymous
And how all those relate to each other

@Blue Kinda like list out a bunch of examples of noise and explain why they're called "noise"?

Anonymous
Information theoretic noise and thermal noise and the inherent quantum noise

@Blue I'd advise against separating them like that. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.

Anonymous
7:27 PM
@Nat I'm not separating them. I want to know how they relate to each other

Anonymous
There's not a single place on the internet which discusses this clearly

Yeah, I guess it's normally assumed to be intuitive because it's meant to be a simple, vague concept.
Noise is basically anything that is a deviation from the ideal signal.
Liike, that was a typo. The typo was a form of noise in this message.
Or static on an analog television's noise (in the television signal).

Anonymous
@Nat Does that type of distortion in a message during communication necessarily have any thermal effects?

@Blue Not in a context-independent sense, no. Not to say that there's an absence of noise, but rather that the concept of "thermal noise" wouldn't be generally meaningful in that question.

Anonymous
In one lecture Vazirani mentioned that if the distortion is irreversible then there's necessarily a $k_{B}T$ energy change...blah blah (shown by Von Neumann)

Anonymous
7:34 PM
After all that mumbo jumbo it becomes all the more confusing to digest

@Blue Sounds like a reference to Landauer's principle.
I'd regard a lot of that stuff as speculative. The logic behind it's not as solid as some would like to believe.
If it doesn't make perfect and complete sense to you, that's probably a good thing. =P

Anonymous
Heh

Anonymous

Anonymous
:P

Huh I did read a neat one a while back... lemme see if I can find it...

7:38 PM
@SirCumference Uhm ... ::looks in the text for the gen-ed astronomy class:: It seems the hydrogen lines are "relatively faint" for G-class stars.

Thanks, but I already got things sorted out :)
Sigh, this stuff is so tedious

Yeah, here's the original paper: "Irreversibility and Heat Generation in the Computing Process" (1961).

@Blue quick question

Anonymous
@Nat Aha. That's the one I guess I was looking for

how do I differentiate this wrt x so as to to get the derivative independent of $a$ : $\sqrt{1-x^2} + \sqrt{1-y^2}=a(x-y)$ .

Anonymous
7:41 PM
Differentiate the equation as it is and then substitute $a$

@Tanuj Let $a = 0$

@SirCumference actually , I don't have to get it independent of a but I have to express the derivative entirely in terms of x and y
So putting a =0 doesn't make sense

@Tanuj Blue's got the right answer

@Blue I'm getting it wrong , I get $dy/dx=1$ , which is not the answer.

Anonymous

7:49 PM
Is $x$ and $y$ independent

@Blue damn ! I got it , missed one part completely.
Thanks :)

Anonymous
Cool!

@Blue Should I give test at my institutes everyday (Tests are not discussed there) Or should I go for three tests per week at my home and study with that ?

@SirCumference I have this one saved as a screenshot

Anonymous
@Tanuj Giving tests at home isn't very fruitful normally because you get distracted. Better give them there and try to solve the remaining parts once you're back home

7:53 PM
@Blue Here's a 2017 book with content on the topic: books.google.com/books?id=fR8vDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA90

@Blue okay

Anonymous
@Nat Thanks! I'll go through it tomorrow. Too sleepy now :)

@SirCumference Beautiful

Anonymous
@SirCumference The Darth Vader one is absolutely hilarious

7:56 PM
You're not big on Star Wars are you?
I could tell, given that misspelling

Anonymous
I'm sleepy

@SirCumference xD
@Blue Sleep is good. You dream, and dreams are awesome. Sometimes you can even fly!
@SirCumference The funniest are probably the seen-by-PI/Professor. Poor grad students. xD

@Nat I don't think I've dreamt in a year. I must be doing it wrong
Well, sometimes I dream about math, but that's only if I study too much

@SirCumference Ack, not remembering dreams can bite! But dreaming of math can be cool; I've actually been reasonably successful doing some practical work in dreams before. Usually happens after spending a long afternoon working on a hard problem, then kinda dream of it as a continuation of the thought process.

Last night I dreamt I was a Lebesgue integral. The week before I woke up telling myself I had to shower, and wondering what kind of function a shower is.

8:10 PM
Wait, do images work in here? !xkcd.
Peanuts.

@Slereah ?!!?!?! HOW ?!?!?!??

wizard
powers

Oh. Silly me. xD

@SirCumference it’s a parabola i think
with some air resistance business in there maybe actually

8:16 PM
It's the exact same mechanism as throwing a ball and finding it's trajectory
Which is a parabola
Well, modulo all the air resistance bullshite

nerd

no u

i know you are but what am i
good luck coming back from that
you’ll need it

the response is going to be via discord
done

ban Salarka Ben @mods

8:23 PM
@diobuceulb Nah I think I was wondering whether it was a scalar or vector function

1 hour later…
9:36 PM
vector i guess because fluid flows can be described by vector fields
but if you’re just thinking about the shape then parabola

Anyone have a estimate of the dynamic viscosity of electrophoresis gel?

$\int_{x=x_0}^{} \textbf{F} \cdot \textbf{n} dS$
What does this notation with no upper limit mean guys?

I could use it to add some interest to a problem for my physics for bio-maors class.
@JakeRose It means that you are going to have the upper limit left in the expression you get at the end. A sloppy but not-uncommon usage.

What do you mean?
Let me write out where this came from

9:47 PM
$\int_{z_1}^{z_2}\int_{y_1}^{y_2} \int_{x_1}^{x_2} F_x(x_2,y,z)-F_x(x_1,y,z) dydz$
And then the limits represent a cuboid
Alligned with the axis

10:00 PM
I found some viscosity numbers on my own. But they vary over 4 orders of magnitude. Grrrr...
I've punted by picking on that makes the question come out the way I want it.
It's good to be the Professor.
But not as good as being the King.
Aside from summers off, of course. That's better.

10:28 PM
@ACuriousMind
SAP
care to explain how you’re going to talk your way out of this one???
if you’re not trying to take over the world then why did you send your friends here?

10:48 PM
@diobuceulb I never claimed SAP doesn't want to take over the world :P

ASAP Bjorn

lmao

@ACuriousMind when's the string theory mixtape coming up?

Hm? Trust me, you don't want to hear me making music :P

Yo, check this joke out!
How do you call a person who reads while handstanding?

10:53 PM
@ACuriousMind I could ghostwrite for you

lol

@BalarkaSen Send me a draft and I'll consider it

@nbro It's right in the room description.

@ACuriousMind Yes, I know, I am joking :)
Just thinking about possibly funny situations
Btw, a new SE site about quantum computing is now in private beta! If anyone here is interested to join it ;)

11:05 PM
@nbro If you direct your view towards the starboard, you'll see you're late to the party ;)

@ACuriousMind rap this
yo yo yo this is asap bjo
string theory was a farce
so now i do a 9-5 while i parse

diobuc you'll get hired by the asap mob if you keep spitting fire like this

i guess when it's my turn to realize string theory is getting me nowhere i can always become a rapper
it's nice to have a plan b later in life

11:49 PM
in Mathematics, 4 hours ago, by Balarka Sen
I can call a mod from hbar if this continues
we have been plague by this random overstarring problem for years and I think the community wants to know who is behind this

@DanielSank it's okay, thanks!

@Loong @ACuriousMind @DavidZ if you don't mind, can you guys use your mod powers to find out who is overstarring the math chat cause all the local mods there are not active for a long time

00:00 - 17:0017:00 - 00:00