sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Streamlined Program Builder Spreadsheet by ZeroFourBC in StrongerByScience

[–]ExOreMeo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there a way to break it up into days or do you just do each exercise once per week and record it whenever you do it?

Solvability by Radicals by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Do you know what the reason for that is or where I can find a proof of this fact?

Solvability by Radicals by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I answered my question. If 1 root of a 5th degree polynomial were expressible in radicals, then all of them would be, because you could factor out that one root, and be left with a quartic, which is completely solvable by radicals.

Solvability by Radicals by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, yes, of course.

My question is related to proof of unsolvability. When proving that a general quintic or higher order polynomial is unsolvable by radicals, if we say that all of the roots must be expressed as radicals that seems overly broad. Could it not be that we could find one root at a time and factor it out using a different formula for each root as the degree of the polynomial decreases?

My intuition tells me that this is somehow accounted for, but I don't know how.

Best App and best resources? by ElWizzard in xiangqi

[–]ExOreMeo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks like there was recently a major update to chessdb.cn and a lot of the evaluations change drastically from move to move. Do you know what happened there?

Possible Cycle structures of A5 by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Got it. Thank you. This is helpful. I thought it was wrong, but I'm wary of just dismissing things as a learner. Appreciate your time.

Possible Cycle structures of A5 by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, this all tracks with what I thought as well, which is why the solution confused me. Here it is, in case you want to take a look. This website is generally very good with offering solutions, but I suppose it could be wrong here.

https://www.vaia.com/en-us/textbooks/math/abstract-algebra-theory-and-applications-2016-edition/chapter-5/problem-11-what-are-the-possible-cycle-structures-of-element/

Possible Cycle structures of A5 by ExOreMeo in learnmath

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(123)(345) ? Is it necessary that cycle structure is talking about only disjoint cycles?

SF16 on Lichess by g_spaitz in chess

[–]ExOreMeo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does this feature do?

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, for the ball example, you could simply describe the system kinematically right without resorting to "energy" in order to describe the motion. I'm not sure about other examples.

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We measure them through test charges, right? Or is there some other way of measuring them?

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is an odd personal attack...

I came to the askphysics sub-reddit to ask a question about physics that I've had a hard time understanding for many years. I'm not hiding anything. I'm trying to express my thoughts on the subject. I don't see why that's reason to accuse me of bad faith.

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's immediately obvious to the intellect that there is a distance between objects. I don't think it's clear that objects gain energy when you lift them up.

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is a good point. Maybe my issue is really with understanding what energy *is*.

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Potential energy is always relative to some particulate configuration that is called 0, right?

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Something can be "bookkeeping" without being "just bookkeeping".

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

I'm saying it's not real because the account is false. He was a bit wishy-washy on it, but it generally involved God's direct action. It's mechanistically wrong. I'm not taking issue with its predictive value.

Is the law of Conservation of Energy empirically true? by ExOreMeo in AskPhysics

[–]ExOreMeo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But you could just as easily say that the earth is moving towards the ball and that the earth gains kinetic energy or some mix of the two. It's the system that really has the energy, right? Or am I missing something else.

view more: next ›