Leaderboard

Translated this reads Things should not be multiplied beyond what is required. Yet no one has found this exact text in his writing that survives. It is true however that much of his writing echoes this sentiment. Howsoever it maybe the question is as in the title How true actually is it ? I posted this because members often appeal to this maxim for support.

@Col Not Colin and @wtf thank you. That interaction was exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate the further external references. Non-Standard Analysis is still above my head, but I will be drinking it in over the next few weeks. That was part of the plan, to observe a mathematical conversation I do not understand. Then systematically research, and record all the foundational concepts I need to add to my repertoire to achieve some functional level of understanding. It is a step change in my understanding. In general, step changes are revelatory when examining complex dynamic systems, which is why I chose this strange method. In order to help me know when I have achieved "some functional level of understanding" I ask that you try to come up with some test for me. It can be just a single question and answer pair that I should be able to answer after understanding what you both just presented. Please send it to me via the message system on this forum with the word "TEST" in the subject line. I will not have it opened until after I have done what feels like enough research. At which point, I will have someone else open it and test me. What a wonderful bonus that the topic involves elements of what I am trying to do. I've also been fascinated by the foundational usefulness of set theory and been reading works about and by the Boole family. So this is front of mind. I have some further questions for @Col Not Colin about the circumstances surrounding receiving this book section "passed to me by another Mathematician." Did you ask for this specific information, or was it chosen by the other mathematician? I want to know who's judgement selected this particular book. If it was chosen by someone else, were you aware that it existed prior to receiving it? What actions on your part caused the mathematician to bring it to you. In what practical context was the information sought or delivered? Work project, idle speculation, academic study, other? The above answers may or may not prove revealing, but they are necessary for testing a particular theory of learning. Tell me whatever you can remember about the difference between what you expected to learn when you received this section of book, versus what you actually learned from it. I assume you were drawn to this "Notation Study" thread due to your own previous examination of notation, indicated by "It's when I started to appreciate that this might be all we need for mathematics." Correct me if I am wrong and feel free to expand. Or when you finish the dishes, teach me a better way to learn Calculus. Again, thank you for participating. Would either of you mind if I messaged you regarding NSA in case I get stuck? @wtfsorry if the thread seems a bit cryptic. As @Col Not Colinsaid, I am gathering information about how mathematicians communicate. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you similar questions. How you came to this thread, was an interest in the mention of NSA, but what prompted you to open a thread titled "Notation Study"? It was obviously your choice, not someone else. Is your interest in this thread professional, idle speculation, academic, or other? Tell me about the difference between what you expected when you entered this thread, versus what you actually discovered here. Sorry it took me a while to respond to your excellent posts. I mistyped my password and locked myself out of the forum for a few days.

The topic was discussed here: https://chemicalforum.webqc.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=20353 In the attachment it must be a mistake. All others are correct.

Please check the items written in red There are 1x10-3 micrograms in 1 nanogram, if that's what you meant. On the other hand, there is some information missing. You started with 4.5 nanograms which is just the mass of something. You are after a final answer that is a concentration (mass per volume). It seems likely that you were told something like "there are 4.5 micrograms per VOLUME OF MEASURENT (maybe 1 litre)" and then asked to convert. IF everything is taking place within a volume of 1 microlitre, then what you have done so far is fine. However, if the original information implies the 4.5 nanograms were in a different volume, then you were absolutely correct in thinking there would be a second step - we must also adjust for the change in volume units. Let's give an example only: If you started with 4.5 ng in 10 litres, then that is equivalent to 4.5 x 10-4 ng per micro-litre, which is 4.5 x 10 -7 micrograms per microlitre. Minor note, there is also a section called "homework help". People usually respond quite quickly and give guidance that is more helpful to you if you are learning.

I hope it’s clear that it does emit photons, but it’s not a resonant process Even journal articles don’t aways contain all of the relevant information to do an experiment. Pop-sci articles contain far less, and tend to avoid precise language. You are free to ask questions about such articles. Extrapolation from them is the problem.

If you are so knowledgable about BEC why don't you share your science? You think a video from Harvard Institute is sci-fi?