Ah, now I get why this reminded me of the typical setup of a physicist explaining Stokes' theorem!
user434058
Anyways, since a few mods are here, I was serially upvoted yesterday, and the votes haven't been reversed yet. The last time this happened to me, the votes got reversed in a day. So would you guys look into it, or is it okay for me to have the rep ;P ?
I'm well-versed in these steps cause this is how we go from the differential form of the Navier-Stokes equations that we solve with finite difference methods to the volume-integrated form that we solve with the finite volume method
@JMac I always tell people interested in computational fluids -- try to write your own solver, get it to work for some canonical problems, and then throw it out and use somebody else's code and never look back
Cause it's painful to write a good solver, on many many levels
@tpg2114 In my experience it was painful to try to solve like the "simple" scenarios. Thank goodness for long existing modelling software. It's nice to try for yourself to have some idea what is going on... but my goodness I couldn't imagine trying to actually be productive that way.
It's good to see how the sausage is made. But unless you happen to really like the intersection of physics, engineering, programming, HPC, numerical methods, software engineering, and other applied math area, it is really not worth trying to write a full code
I don't recommend it. It is pretty rewarding though, especially when you can add entirely new capabilities in very short times
Yesterday I was adding an immersed boundary forcing method to do arbitrary geometries on cartesian meshes -- took like 2 hours and it worked right away. But today, I'm trying to write a CAD file reader so I can build a KD-tree of the surface and create signed distance functions
and the viewership was 77M I think many are claiming that it would have made world reccord but there was a 1983 show of name M.A.S.H. garnering 183M views so Ramayan settled for second
They are very different styles, however. Friends has overarching stories that go on for many episodes/seasons. Seinfeld has some of them, but mostly you can watch them in any order and they all stand alone
@MadameAkira I've never heard that before. Seinfeld and Friends are pretty different. Seinfeld is "a show about nothing". Basically just narcissists thrown into random situations and reacting to them (often with good running jokes through the episode). Friends seemed a lot more of the 'traditional" sitcom.
One thing to be made clear is that when I say 77M viewership on TV.I AM TALKING ABOUT A SERIES PREMIERED BACK IN 1987 AND RETELECASTED TODAY in the time of NETflix
M*A*S*H is a good show too. It's a bit dated and a bit preachy at times. The earlier episodes were awesome, more comedy. Later in the series it got darker, more about the horrors of war, but still had comedy baked into it
@MadameAkira Seinfeld is a lot less "happy" than Friends or HIMYM IMO. The jokes more centre on characters being mean to each other or other people. Still a comedy, and it's not like "depressing", just not as uplifting.
@abhas_rewcie they say the three epics tell us three different things Bhagwat Gita :- how to live life Ramayana :- what to do Mahabharata :- what not to do
Big Bang Theory took me some time to watch. When I was at school, people everywhere around me were like those guys and it wasn't really funny to me... it annoyed me at school, so why would I want to watch the same thing on TV
@tpg2114 I personally really like The Office. There are some episode I skip because they can be way too cringeworthy; but overall I definitely like it. That said, the UK version has a better plot IMO.
Now I can watch it though, the earlier seasons are funny. It's also less about nerds and more about cramming science jokes into a traditional "let's chase after girls" sitcom
@JMac Did you get into Parks and Recreation? I never really watched it cause it seemed just a bit too blatantly derivative. But I know a lot of people who like it way more than the Office
@JMac That's how I use Seinfeld now also -- I've seen them all so many times, I can just put it on in the background and fade attention in and out as I want to
If you want really narcissistic people taken to the extreme, like what would happen to Seinfeld if they were rich and well-off people, then It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia is the way to go
But, through Bojack, there's a story of trying to get better and failing. Moments where he recognizes he's a horrible, destructive person and he tries to improve but then falls back
It's Always Sunny, there's no redemption or attempts at it. They are just horrible, trashy people
@tpg2114 Parks and Rec is a weird one. Season 1 was basically just "It's The Office with a woman as Michael Scott and they're in the government". Season 2 onwards gave it a life of it's own, and it turned into a great series IMO. Probably some of the most memorable sitcom characters.
@tpg2114 I loathe TBBT. It takes the worst kind of nerds, puts them into the spotlight and thinks it's so hilarious that they're nerds, never acknowledging they're also just terrible people.
@ACuriousMind A lady friend of mine once bought me the boxed set of TBBT on the grounds (so she claimed) that I reminded her of Sheldon. I have long wondered if this was a hint that she wanted to remain just a friend.
I feel like every article on the stock market is basically "Here's some crazy looking graph with dozens of lines that clearly shows <use some complicated term>. Some analysts think this is a sign prices will continue to rise, while others think stocks are about to fall. KTHXBYE, click our ads!"
I'm in the wrong field. I can plot random variables against each other also and then make wild guesses about what it means
I only have to be right marginally better than 50% of the time. So flip some coins for awhile until random chance has me right 51% of the time, and retire as a financial genius
@Qmechanic Haven't watched that, but maybe I should
@tpg2114 I think quantitative finance has a "pop-sci" scene much like physics where the things being written only make questionable sense if you look at them carefully :P
Is this saying of mine true or false? "In pertubation theory we try to sum up as many feynman diagrams as we can, we leave the rest and hope that they didn't matter that much." What I am asking I guess is, is the neglection of diagrams always/often justified or does it just work?
@B.Brekke It's not a "hope". If you look carefully, the standard perturbative expansion in loop-order is an expansion in the coupling constants. For coupling constants <<1, it's clear that the lower-order terms are the relevant ones. Arguably it's even better to not try to compute every term, since the perturbation series is asymptotic and is not expected to converge to the correct value.
@ACuriousMind Wow, this sounds strange to me and very interesting! I will have to read up on it. But that means, that even though the factorial growth of diagrams seems to make the sum diverge, by performing resummation I can still get a sensible result?
Could anyone give a brief explanation for why the covariant derivative is used in place of the regular derivative instead of just the four-gradient? The four-gradient acting on a tensor creates another tensor (as in the construction of the electromagnetic tensor), but we still create a new derivative, the covariant derivative in GR?
I was thinking about this yesterday, I thought the whole point of using the covariant derivative was because the regular derivative creates non tensorial objects, but the four gradient seems to satisfy this requirement, no?
