@PM2Ring @ACuriousMind A master in electronics on Arduino SE says that there's the option of instead of using .txt, I can use bitmap images. I'm pretty skeptical about this but it's worth asking. He suggests creating bitmap images 128x160 (the size of my display) and overlaying the text in the specific font (I'm not even sure how the whole thing would work) and then sending the bitmap images... it's going to be pretty hard to code, it will be slow and I don't think it's worth it.
@JingleBells 1. Never call something "slow" until you've measured it :P Knuth allegedly said "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" and he wasn't too far off. 2. Professional text rendering is very hard to code "on your own" but for any language there should be graphics libraries that do it for you.
Also, modern 3d games render 60 high-resolution frames per second. If you can't render a bit of text in much less than a second, you're doing it wrong
@ACuriousMind I understand what you're saying. But in my case, it's not only about speed, using bitmaps it would disable dynamic font changing, but it's also going to be harder to program (it'll take more time), and eventually the only thing it has that the other method doesn't is a better go-to-previous-page function, which is not that important by itself.
The other method can adapt to different text fonts and sizes and it'll be easier to later integrate images and other stuff.
@ACuriousMind Don't leave me hanging like that, you do this very often. Just say okay or something so I know that you've read it and the discussion is over. You always just disappear without a word and I'm left wondering if you've went to the toilet or you have read the text...
@JingleBells What Loong said - I never really have this chat open as the "main" thing I do, I'm usually doing something else, too. So when I "disappear", it's usually because I can't or won't interrupt that other thing right then to respond here.
@ACuriousMind Okay, in that case, please either don't start discussions with me if you don't have the time to finish them or send a quick message letting me know that you're busy and you won't be able to continue.
But in the above case, it seems to be that you simply didn't have anything to say, not that you were busy.
@JingleBells It's the nature of chat that you will not always get a response to your messages. As much as it is courteous for someone who you've been exchanging messages with to let you know when they stop paying attention, you can't always expect it, and complaining about that can itself be a little bit discourteous.
@ACuriousMind I understand that your time is valuable, but mine is also, so next time, just please send a message. Ur my friend, please don't stop talking to me ;\
@Slereah Define 'better' :P If you want to quantize more general classical systems than the straightforward ones where the phase space is the cotangent bundle of a position space, you need some sort of generalization of canonical quantization to generic phase spaces
You have essentially two choices for such a general procedure - the more analytic deformation quantization where you really think about "adding back" higher order terms in $\hbar$ to the classical physics and the more, well, geometric geometric quantization
@Slereah It essentially forbids you from even trying to quantize terms with problematic ordering :P
our site is really behind in terms of quality on fluid mechanics I can see either homework type questions or some old question no new content ma be because people are less interested in the subject i do not know what @ACuriousMind is doing in this?
@YuvrajSingh... Post on meta if you want to propose changes to site policy. But this idea strikes me as poorly thought out. You haven't really made an argument why fluid mechanics in particular would have a problem or how lowering our quality standards is supposed to make it better
@Slereah The delooping is the groupoid with a single object and one arrow for each group element
and the notion of a groupoid is more general than that of a group
while you can turn all groups into one-element groupoids, you can have groupoids that don't come from a group, e.g. the fundamental groupoid of (homotopy classes of) paths
'A groupoid is a generalization of a group, which can be thought of as a collection of groups... a group is a one-object category where all morphisms are invertible. Then, a groupoid is any category where all morphisms are invertible.'
'If you think of groups as the sets of symmetries of certain geometrical objects, then groupoids are local symmetries of geometrical objects. My favorite example of this consists on taking a manifold M and defining a groupoid G as the set of all the local diffeomorphisms f:U-->V where U and V are open sets of M, with multiplication given by composition of maps (whenever it makes sense). '
Traditionally, if you want to deal with the fundamental groupoid, you choose a base point and do stuff with the fundamental group w.r.t. that basepoint. But for non-connected spaces, you're forgetting information by this
my understand of the Coriolis force that the difference of velocity on a specific circular path around the earth leads to (because momentum is conserved) to a force (which is fictional) that shows that object to drift in a specific direction. Under this understanding can we say that an object which is on the Equator, that say moves west or east does not really matter but nevertheless stays on that circular path around the equator, does not experiance this effect? the mathematical formula however found on Wikipedia says otherwise.
An object which moves along the equator doesn't experience any Coriolis force, if you're working from Earth's reference frame. Only when the object moves towards the poles from the equator, we need to consider this inertial force. Again when you work from an inertial frame you don't need any pseudo forces.
I'd say this is mainly because of the object's inertia - tendency to maintain state of rest or motion, and the differential speed at different points of a rotating body.
As of now, I'm not much used to the math behind the Coriolis effect. I just know the reason behind it. So it would be better if you could ask some one more familiar with this. However, I'm sure an object moving along the equator wouldn't experience any Coriolis force.
I think as per Wikipedia I'm incorrect:
> The train travels toward the west: In that case, it moves against the direction of rotation. Therefore, on the Earth's rotating frame the Coriolis term is pointed inwards towards the axis of rotation (down).
I agree that I was incorrect on that part. I thought Coriolis force is a lateral force which causes deviations along the tangential plane. If a force is up/down shouldn't that be called "centrifugal" force (yet another pseudo force)?
Or is it possible for centrifugal and Coriolis forces to act along the same direction? I thought they were independent terms of the overall pseudo force in a rotating frame.
Something like the x,y and z components of velocity of a particle in space.
@GuruVishnu By definition the centrifugal force is the fictitious force in the direction of $\omega\times\omega\times r$, and the Coriolis force is the fictitious force in the direction of $\omega\times v$
Now, if $\omega\times r$ and $v$ point in the same direction, you of course get that both forces are parallel
this doesn't mean you should call them differently
@YuvrajSingh... what is your interest in fluid mechanics? agreed more attn could be put on it around here + in general. it takes time, attn, commitment, expertise, focus etc... all stuff that sometimes seem in short supply among (harried) humans esp on the internet. on the bright side new mod tpg2114 is a professional/ expert, has deep interest, and has made substantial contributions. also you can find some larger/ detailed discussions over the yrs in chat archives :)
I have heard that it's mathematically challenging, but that's what I like, though I haven't started it yet.
user434058
David Griffiths isn't really hard if you 4read what the author has written carefully and then go solve the problems. So it is good to just revise and brush up your topics.
Anyone here can recommend a good text or video on graph theory? It’s been 30 years since I touched this and even that was done lightly. Looking for insight into Hamiltonian and Lagrangian circuits as I want to try some numerical experiments on those.
@Pole_Star 1. depends what you want for vector calc. Multiple good text on math.methods, *v.g* Arfken, or Boas, 2. depends what you want for electrodynamics. See for instance https://global.oup.com/academic/product/modern-problems-in-classical-electrodynamics-9780195146653?cc=us&lang=en
