/sci/ - Science & Math

What do you mean why?
Whereever you got it from, the derivation can't be far.

It's "just" the usual operator and then the number N=a*a of excitations of the string. And the whole thing is anti-symmetrized.

>>4577842
I agree that string theory seems fuller and nicer. And the matter-problem is of course a terrible feature.
Nevertheless, there are some intruiging aspects to Loop Quantum Gravity, namely how time is treated. I have a massive problem with time and the Wheeler–DeWitt equation is a nice way of getting rid of it, in a way.
String theory is not too different from other QFTs, imho, but since it actually talks about bosons or fermions, it's much much closer to produce result - and I also have no idea how LQG would relate to Gauge-Gravity duality. It probably doesn't.

>>4577875
>foundations
like what?

>Emma as Gwen Stacey
all of my money

>>3825647
Where (o) is that pic from OP?
I curious becaus of the imaginary units. There is a way of writing down maxwells equations using quaternios, but nobody is doing that anymore.

Manipulate[
Plot3D[y^3 Sin[x], {x, -2, 2}, {y, -2, 2},
Mesh -> 4, Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, ImageSize -> 200,

ColorFunction -> partyparty, PlotLabel -> partyparty],

{partyparty, {"DarkRainbow", "Rainbow", "Pastel", "Aquamarine",
"BrassTones", "BrownCyanTones", "CherryTones", "CoffeeTones",
"FuchsiaTones", "GrayTones", "GrayYellowTones", "GreenPinkTones",
"PigeonTones", "RedBlueTones", "RustTones", "SiennaTones",
"ValentineTones", "AlpineColors", "ArmyColors", "AtlanticColors",
"AuroraColors", "AvocadoColors", "BeachColors", "CandyColors",
"CMYKColors", "DeepSeaColors", "FallColors", "FruitPunchColors",
"IslandColors", "LakeColors", "MintColors", "NeonColors",
"PearlColors", "PlumColors", "RoseColors", "SolarColors",
"SouthwestColors", "StarryNightColors", "SunsetColors",
"ThermometerColors", "WatermelonColors", "RedGreenSplit",
"DarkTerrain", "GreenBrownTerrain", "LightTerrain", "SandyTerrain",
"BlueGreenYellow", "LightTemperatureMap", "TemperatureMap",
"BrightBands", "DarkBands"}}, ControlPlacement -> Right]

Hier eine Konstruktion die die Familie von Möglichen Lösungen gibt, allerdings nur 2 Punkte der Kurve at a time

Manipulate[
Show[
Plot[None, {axes, -2, 4}, PlotRange -> {-3, 3}],
Graphics[Point@{{f, Log[x]}, {x, f}}]

], {{x, 1}, -5, 5}, {f, -3, 3}
]
(* f[f[x]]=Log[x]
set x=1 ==> f[f[1]]=0 also ist die Nullstelle der Funcktion f \
parametrisiert durch f an einer anderen Stelle
*)

>>3138337
>mfw every time you use axiom of choice - a kitty dies

>Morality is subjective.
This is not an argument against philosophy.
In learning philosophy, i.e. in learining about thoughts people have and had, I influence and extend my own ways, how I behave, act and what my moralities are.

To me, "doing philosophy" is not like proving the Atiyah–Singer index theorem, but more like socializing - a crucial and enjoyable process. Philosophy doesn't set out to find a true moral, but rather questions if such a thing would be even possible.

It can't be useless, because it influences how we operate in the short 100 years we have.
In the end, (even) if we all are machines and if time exists, then we still have to write "the code of our behavior".

>>3114505
the german wikipedia ist very strict, but it works good.
the german wikipedia invented alot of the wikipedia infastructure.

Link verwandt:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/L%C3%B6schdiskussion.gif/300px-L%C3%B6schdi
skussion.gif

Ist eine Wikipedia-Bürokratie-Parodie

>>3054020
in all of those pictures there is one line where P=constant. But in the carnot process (the most effective process there is) there is no line with constant P.

In the carnot process, what is constant is always energy related:
One time Q is constant (adiabatic process), so no heat flow dQ. and therefore also dS=dQ/T=0.
And the other time T is constant, so dT=0, which means dU=0, since for ideal gas U=U(T), or more precisely
U(T)=c·T=b·pV, where c and b are some constants.

So if you see a process where V or P is constant, then it's not good for the energy.

2/3

dropnp[var_] := Simplify[Times @@ Map[
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "1", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\)^
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "2", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\) &,
Select[FactorList[#], Not[FreeQ[First@#, var]] &]]] &

np[var_] := Simplify@Times[
\[ScriptN][
\!\(\*SubscriptBox[
RowBox[{"FactorTermsList", "[",
RowBox[{"Simplify", "[", "#", "]"}], "]"}],
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "1", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\)],
Times[
\[ScriptP][Simplify[Times @@ Map[
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "1", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\)^
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "2", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\) &,
Select[#, FreeQ[First@#, var] &]]]],
Simplify[Times @@ Map[
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "1", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\)^
\!\(\*SubscriptBox["#",
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "2", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\) &,
Select[#, Not[FreeQ[First@#, var]] &]]]
] &[FactorList[
\!\(\*SubscriptBox[
RowBox[{"FactorTermsList", "[",
RowBox[{"Simplify", "[", "#", "]"}], "]"}],
RowBox[{"\[LeftDoubleBracket]", "2", "\[RightDoubleBracket]"}]]\)]]
] &

if you believe that the area of an rectangle is a·b then it's just the interpretation of the formulas as the (limit of) the sum of rectangles which lie under the curve.
The integral itself is just an operation with variables (or rather elements of the function algebra, for example polynomials) and what it is you integrate (an area, total work, paths of a quantum field) is pure interpretation/visualization.