I've run 5/3/1 for a few years and own Beyond, Forever, and Powerlifting, but I'm learning more about training in general and want to experiment with conjugate just for my own learning.
Has anyone attempted to incorporate conjugate principles into 5/3/1? Did it work?
I've thought about using bands/chains for supplemental work (maybe putting the supplemental work on a different day from the main work as mentioned somewhere in Forever), or even doing a 3 week conjugate cycle in place of an anchor cycle. Any thoughts are welcome, I'm just hoping to get a better handle on different forms of training in general.
Looking for direction on what textbooks provide the best overview of the subjects for an advanced home schooling option. Undergrad or grad level are both fine.
Let [; G = B_3 ;] be the braid group on three strands. That is, G is generated by elements a and b with the only relation aba = bab. (This means that an element in the group is some word in a, b, a^-1 and b^-1 with the relation above; for example, *babaaa^-1 * is equal to bbab -- see Wikipedia).
Now, I played around with some representations of this guy and in a particular case, it turned out that elements [; a^i b^j ;] and [; b^i a^j ;] (for i and j integer) had the same order. Now this would always be the case if the elements turned out to be conjugate; is this the case?
Edit: Thanks for the replies; I'll check them later.
I didn't really get much to go on from my professor. I'm not sure how to go about breaking the group down. I'm as far as knowing that if the group is abelian, then any two elements form its own conjugacy class. Also, if the center is the whole group, then any two elements are conjugate of each other.
I'm thinking this may have something to do with dihedral groups, but I'm not sure.
How should I proceed?
This is more specific to scientists/science students at college, but anyone's input is welcome.
I'm a chemistry student, and I've noticed that I don't do well with lectures, lecture notes or reading. But when I'm in the lab, I can focus a hundred times better. I go into this super intense mode where I suddenly remember all the steps and details, I'm not making careless mistakes as I do on exams. I can go hours without getting bored, whereas lectures are insufferable for more than 5 minutes.
This makes me question whether I actually have ADHD since that's what everyone experiences, right? Everyone hates doing boring stuff and can focus better on whatever they enjoy. Or does this corroborate with my referral for a diagnosis, because I've heard of hyperfocus and how it effects people with ADHD? Impostor syndrome is a bitch.
For instance: evidence for a 4.5 billion year old earth being corroborated by astronomy, biology, anthropology, history, the earth sciences, etc.
I read "Mathematical Manuscripts of Karl Marx" and other works by Sofya Yanovskaya which interested me about the specific field of history of mathematics and want to know more about it. Im already into other works that integrantes social sciences and natural sciences, epistemology and etc... Specially with Foucault's work, critical theorists readings of Cantor (like Nick Land, who just love this guy) and all of the texts that scientific realists were critical about it in Science Wars (i have posted in this sub a lot so you might already know that im into the ct side on this event), but i never read anything really deep about math that is not an advocation of ethnomaths (which is fine, i agree, but is not the only thing we can talk about in the maths field), something related to critical pedagogy of maths and etc... Also, i know that people like Foucault himself are important on critical theory's stance on history of science, so why not a ct stance on history of mathematics?
When I consider the problem of the cosmologica constant I see that the bare cosmological constant is shifted by a value due to the density of energy of the vacuum. My question is the following: Can I consider the energy of the vacuum as an interaction that change the cosmological constant ? (As I do with the renormalization , so I consider a particle dressed by interaction and the coupling constants change)
I'm reviewing for my electronic structure theory exam, and as I look over the various quantum chemical models, I can't help but feel...
All these "quantum fields" are basically just mathematical tools/abstractions to allow us to handle N-body issues. The author of my book himself seems to highly imply this notion too (SurjΓ‘n PΓ©ter: Introduction to Second Quantized Formalism).
I've not studied QFT yet, so I'm wondering. Is QFT using a similar idea to HF to simplify dealing with multiple particles?
I am from India, and I am new to Social Sciences so I don't really know the acceptance of this theory. I came across it while reading American news and got info about it from Wiki. Seems its a popular theory among some western Universities while conservatives oppose it vehemently.
The basic argument of CRT is, if I am not wrong, that color blind policies hurt people of color and therefore, policies should be targetted towards them, people should continue to differentiate between black and white people (rather than the concept of equality which says everyone should be treated equally), with black and other POCs getting more privileges to compensate their positions in society, counter 'white privilege' and as a kind of 'historical compensation' because modern white people's ancestors used to own black people's ancestors as slaves. Some CRT theorists, I saw on Wiki, say racism is permanent and all pervasive in countries like US and therefore black people should always be given these affirmative actions forever and ever.
Apparently, conservatives in US, UK, etc oppose this and consider it racist but most liberal western Universities like Harvard and Yale teaches them and has extended to schools. Saw some liberal thinkers criticizing CRT too but never saw any liberal/leftist/POC in the news or social media ever criticize it. It seems to be that CRT is widely accepted as true in Sociology and Pol Sci. Where else is it usually considered true? What about Anthropology and Economics, do they accept this theory? Also how widely accepted is it in reality? Do media do a fair job showing the widespread acceptance of CRT?
Currently working on a Bachelorβs in Mechanical Engineering. Would it be possible to enter a graduate study program with this degree? If so, could I spread my degree plan out so that I could study while working? How does financing graduate study work? Will I have access to scholarships? Does it matter if there are a few years between graduation and application for grad school? Are there certain prerequisites I need to have? Really I donβt understand anything about the graduate school process and donβt know where to start researching. Any help or advice is welcome.
I am an undergrad student in mathematics and I am actually taking a course in abstract algebra. We are studying some field theory and lately we had two chapters involving Galois theory like primitive element theorem and Fundamental theorem of Galois theory. The course seemed really nice learning about groups (Sylow theorems and solvable ) and rings until we got to fields which are giving me a pretty hard time. Maybe this theory is not that hard I don't know but I don't have any clear idea what we are doing, what this or that theorem is about intuitively, why this lemma is true and how should I start solving this excercise.
Does anyone know any good book or video series that can help me with this situation and every tip or suggestion is also very valuable?
I can pick up all the other parts of geology, but everything to do with the mapping skills in geology is impossible for me to get my head around. We covered structural contours, and then quickly went into calculating thickness to create stratigraphic columns, and all of these mapping techniques don't sink in no matter how much I try. Are there any books or resources where I can teach myself these? Even when the lecturers explain again to me it makes no sense.
Anyone in comp eng know if this course required? Because on RAMSS it appears under 3rd and 4th semester requirements but on the undergraduate calender website it isn't listed.
Hi guys, i need help. I suggested a lot of topics to my maths teacher and he rejected almost all of them but the one about chaos theory. I take Maths AA HL. Idk if i am supposed to say this but i need to associate the COVID-19 pandemic with chaos theory in my exploration however i am not sure which maths field should i focus on when doing it. Do you guys have some suggestions for me?
I have quite a few decks put together and I have noticed I gravitate towards decks that play field spells that are quite powerful. This has had me thinking on the topic of 3x of the field spell + 1x terraforming seems to always be default for decks that rely on field spells for consistency, but what about decks that don't?
For instance, my main decks right now are Guru Control, Floowandereeze, and Drytron. The first two clearly need their field spell where as Drytron does not, but you do see some consistency from it.
So I started thinking about the categories of field spells and how you'd appropriately ratio them with field spell searchers and came up with my personal rule of thumb below:
Does your deck rely heavily on the field spell for consistency, board control, or interactions? If yes, you more than likely should be playing 3x with 1x terraforming unless your deck has a way to fetch the field spell then terraforming can be optional. (Examples would be subterror, s-force, floowander, etc.)
Does your deck gain consistency and power from its field spell but it is not needed for combo lines or starter functionality? Playing 2x field spell and one searcher is probably a good decision. Playing 1 searcher and 2 targets allows you to shrink the deck and not draw into multiples of a not overly necessary card. (Deskbots is my favorite example of this. Deskbot base isn't necessary but it helps a lot )
Does you deck benefit from its field spell but it is entirely optional to play? Anywhere from 0-2 is my suggested ratio. (Drytron's field spell can fetch you nova and I play it at 1 and my other example I use is Adamancipator's field spell. It can stack the deck and serve as a Dragite bounce if stuck in the deck. I always play it at 1 for it's utility.)
To a specific point I made here, one thought I had was that in my experience 2x field spell + 1x searcher is the ideal ratio I have found in decks that don't rely on the field spell as opposed to just 3x field spell. It helps keep dead cards out of the hand.
Anyone have any similar thoughts on field spells?
Something I've been pondering for fun for awhile now, and probably shouldn't type this out when I'm sleep deprived, but sleep is hard and I feel bored!
Theory goes;
The island of Kenshi is an artificially isolated continent created by a more advanced civilization which is locked in perpetual war for some combination of three reasons; Disposal, Forced Evolution, and Observation.
The threat of acid waters and the unknown keep most of anyone from trying to swim or make some sort of boat to another place. Observers could easily wipe out any attempts to do so.
Whatever war it was that the machines were all built for, it has nothing to do with the setting of Kenshi itself. Rather, the continent was just the dumping grounds for war machines that are malfunctioning, choosing a planet with few useful resources and too hostile of an environment for practical colonization. They were placed there because it's too dangerous to attempt to dispose of them directly, but were still useful enough to test run tests through- Or they just needed a place to let everything run wild. Observation posts were created to compile and relay data. Skeletons were employed en-mass to minimize the loss of life.
Eventually, someone in power realized that the continent had become a near-perfect simulation of the dangers that would be encountered on the warfront. Either the population of scientists was enough already, or maybe there were prisoners involved. In any case, there was a sudden betrayal, and the civilized people on the surface were all abandoned.
All current lore stems from 1. Misinformation from the Skeleton observers
2. Interpretations of logs from the discarded machinery/archives
3. A telephoned version of the cultural hate that many of the abandoned humans felt after realizing what happened so many generations ago.
Possible offshoots of this theory include;
-Hivers were a native species to the planet. They were an intelligent lifeform that learned true sapience from observing humans, shek, and skeletons. It's why the queen is basically feral.
-Shek are biologically modified humans, their lack of extraordinary performance when compared to normal humans why it was decided 'natural' evolution was the better choice.
OR
-Shek are the race of the enemy to humans, and where placed there alongside humans to further the evolution of the human race.
-Cat-Lon was originally tasked with either a leadership position of the science teams
Hi everyone,
I'm looking for resources on probability theory and its connections to other fields. At this point, I'm not aiming at solving a particular problem. Instead I just want to learn more what's out there.
Some rough points about what i have in mind include
- probability theory and functional analysis (spaces of (constrained) probability distributions; operations and operators on these spaces, such as convolutions and characteristic functions; distributions as means to represent mixed discrete/continuous probability distributions; connections between the measure-theoretic and distribution-based formulation of probability distributions)
- probability theory and (differential) geometry (random variables over curved manifolds or lie groups; the geometric structure of the space of (constrained) probability distributions; probability distributions as differential forms and their connections to probability measures)
Looking forward to your ideas :)
Correct Theories
- SOS cards and Unites were balanced. With SOS cards, Cogs Miss and Toons Hit now changes accuracy for toons/cogs. Unites now have a cooldown.
- The "NOT A SECRET HIDEOUT" sign was added. When we were shown a toon entering the hideout for the first time, the sign was nowhere to be seen. I theorised that it either simply wasn't added in yet or it was removed, as a way of keeping the hideout a secret. Instead, what we got was the sign only appearing once the player has access to the hideout.
Somewhat Correct Theories
- Sellbot sewers having black oil that harmed Toons (similarly to the fountain in Bossbot HQ). However, I was imagining that we would actually have to walk through sewers before we reached the hideout. Instead, we just had a pool of black oil in the hideout itself.
- The Boiler Room having a grated metal floor. However, I was theorising that there would be lava visible underneath it. This was because of the blurry teaser we got that showed a strangely orange floor. Now we know that the orange was just light coming from the boiler.
Incorrect Theories
- A Gag Shop within the hideout.
- The sewers having cog searchlights (again, this was because I believed that the player would have to walk through sewers before reaching the hideout, a bit like a street)
- A difficult teleport task to the Toon Resistance base. This most likely didn't happen as: 1) where would the button to teleport there go on the map. 2) most players who have reached the Sellbot Task Force task should already have the TP to Sellbot HQ. And if not, this acts as an incentive.
Incorrect Theories that were acknowledged by TTR
- Rebalancing of sound. TTR has stated that "[they] are keenly aware of how powerful Sound gags are in Toontown" and that "sometime in the future [they] hope to take a closer look at Sound "
- Introducing Level 13+ cogs to other parts of the game. Joey himself confirmed that it could happen but it "will be a
So i was wondering how John is going to get into this field trip. They obviously dont want to take him with them cuz safe house members are afraid of John. I dont think that even if he wanted John won't have enough time to gain their trust anyway. At the end of latest chapter Terrence was following them and John sensed him. So is it possible that John will copy his ability and will be able to turn invisible as well? If so then maybe he will sneak into their field trip without anyone knowing he's there lol
what do you think?
> "We're not gonna be hyping anything up or showing anymore gameplay until it's actually time for it to launch. The good news is that β although you can't see that stuff right now β whenever you do start getting little hints that Sellbot Field Offices are coming soon, they really will be coming soon."
- Joey Z., Spring 2021 Development Update
Layman here. There are two statements I usually hear from experts but they seldom explain why they are so. It's like everyone just drops the issue as a fact and never go deeper:
First is the incompatibility of Quantum Physics with Relativity. I get the general gist of them being two models in two vastly, mind-bogglingly different scales. Then why would we expect quanta to bend space-time in any measurable way? Wouldn't it make sense just to think particles do bend space-time in infinitesimal amounts, but the cumulative effect that is only measurable on a macro (or mega) scale? But the way it's always explained sounds like there is a major, more fundamental discord of the two models, and I don't see why.
Second, Hawking Radiation 'evaporating' black holes. I get that virtual particles pop into existence right at the Event Horizon, and thus, one falls into the singularity while the other gets emitted. Again, experts and documentaries say this makes the black hole evaporate over a very long period of time (even beyond the Heat Death of the universe) but they never dive deeper into the explanation. Why is that? Seems to me that if Black Holes are capturing one of the two particles, they should be growing, not shrinking. Essentially feeding on the energy of empty space and growing forever, which should eventually (given a nearly infinite time), have all the black holes merging to each other, counter-acting cosmic inflation (I know, nuts), and the universe would be just an ever-expanding black hole... Obviously, that's just my imagination going wild, I have no math whatsoever to support this, but I want to identify where my common sense steps down from the Science.
Any archaeologists out there hate the field work?
My thought: The future is in computational archaeology and wide-scale data curation.
Not saying the shovel bum aspect is not valuable but I just don't see it as mature in its adoption of high-tech.
They can at best fluctuate about being mean.
Lately I've been watching episodes of SciShow just auto playing until I eventually fall asleep. Usually I'll wake up to a three hour video lecture on some science topic from a university and turn if off before going back to bed. But the other night instead of some monotone professor talking to me about geology I woke up to this woman talking about how there is a giant planet approaching Earth that is being obscured by some high tech projector whenever it eclipses the sun. She has literally dozens of videos on this where she dissects weather camera footage to show you the "projector" (which is usually just lens flare).
I watched for about 30 minutes out of curiosity and it was really interesting to see this how this whole theory unravels in her mind.
It's funny to me because I don't actually watch any conspiracy theory videos on YouTube. My entire watch history is entirely SciShow, PBS Eons, random tech YouTubers, and SGS. But I guess in the end YouTube was right because here I am sharing the channel.
The YouTube channel in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSoUtjcq-LjPxPVZiAPYidQ
I thought that only positive numbers have a square root, so pos(x) = (βy) yΒ·y = x. However, in the complex field, even negative numbers have roots, so I am not sure how to define pos(x).
)