timo

1)Typical physical causes are heavy loss of blood, insufficient pumping volume of the heart (cardiogenic shock) and expansion of the arteries and veins. 2) Symptoms depends on the form of shock. For emergency medicine (shock is an emergency situation) the two most important criteria for determining a shock (after the criterion which is almost always the most important: General appearance of the patient and a gut feeling of the medical personal) are low blood pressure and increased pulse (the latter might not be the case for cardiogenic shocks). Other symptoms include paleness and anxios behaviour (the latter is -to my experience- a useless criterion but usually mentioned). An interesting symptom of a cardiogenic shock is the swelling of the neck veins. Note: While I have some basic education about such things, my memory is a bit rusty (it's been something like 5 years since I last had to deal with such things). I think googling for a good reliable webpage might be better than asking such questions on an internet forum.

Or perhaps more specifically (not sure to what extent universities can set their fees as they like): IF OXFORD wanted to attract more foreign students. I don't really think Oxford university the problem that no one from abroad wants to study there.

Yes, it's correct for non-rotating spherically-symmetric mass distributions like non-rotating black holes (with the little constraint that it does not explain what gravitational time dilatation actually is). The value presented runs towards zero when r approaches the Schwarzschild radius, hence its inverse (which is an equally-valid observable) does indeed diverge.

Not really sure what you are trying to achieve, but mayhaps this helps: - I redefine your writing style into something that imho makes a little more sense: 11/6 = 1 remainder 5 --> 11/6 = 1 remainder 5/6 = 1 + 5/6. - Assume the problem a/(b*c). - Define a/b =: x remainder y/b. - => a/(bc) = (x + y/b)/c. - Define x/c =: X remainder Y/c. - => a/(bc) = X + (Y + y/b)/c. Note that and why the 2nd added is <1. - => a/(bc) = X + (Y*b + y) / (bc) meaning a/(bc) = X remainder (Y*b + y). EDIT: Your on my "let him think it through himself for a few minutes"-list now .

The definition of acceleration [math] \vec a = \frac{d}{dt} \frac{d}{dt} \vec x(t)[/math] usually assumes all appearing t's to be the same coordinate.

Updated version

Omg, your map is completely outdated. We all know that the world has changed since 6 years ago.

Well, a circle has an area equal to [math] \pi r^2 [/math]. Hence, a section created by an angle [math]\alpha[/math] has an area equal to [math] \frac{\alpha}{360^\circ} \pi r^2 [/math]. So what you obviously need is the angles and the radii. Generally, for homework questions, please provide your ideas of how to solve the problem, what you already tried out, what you think you already achieved, which step you have a problem with, why you think a certain idea will work or won't work, ... . As an example in this case: How did you compute the area of the triangle?

I'd calculate the area of the triangle formed by the three centers, then substract the shares that the circles themselves contribute to that area.

Are "genetic algorithms" the same as genetic optimization, is genetic optimization just a special case of a genetic algorithm or are the two unrelated? I find it very far-called to say that "the applications in every field of science are quite literally limitless". The reason why you don't hear more about the field? Probably the same as with density functional theory, maximal helicity-violating amplitudes and Monte-Carlo integration: Steven Hawking didn't mention it in his books .

Judging from your avatar I assume you are going into chemistry. Can't help you with that. A few comments, though: Basically, all programming languages have pretty much the same potential. It's just that programming and maintaining the code might be more cumbersome. I don't know to what extent vb code can be run on non-Windows machines. Code that can be run on a maximum amount of different systems should imho be a top priotity, especially if you are a Windows user (code running on all common systems except windows is usually quite ok, too - but I'd personally prefer code that also runs on Windows). Often, data is giving in plain text format. If not, you can write a vb app that converts it accordingly. Working with data is usually done with specialized software. Simple manipulations can often be done with little scripts. From my experience: If you are using Linux&Co, try using scripts as soon as possible. It's not necessary to formally learn the scripting language, though. It's pretty simple. "Modelling" as in "simulate processes"? Any language can do that. OOP is prefereable for projects involving more than one person. But if you get involved in such a project, you're not likely to be the one that descides which language to use, anyways. I would assume the instruments usually come with their own interfaces or controlling languages. But I'm not an experimentalists, so I cannot say. In particle physics, c++ is the de-facto standard, as far as I can tell. It's probably a good guess for other areas, too. I would recommend learning this over learning c, for that I think writing c (if needed) is not too hard when you already know c++. Most important tip: I think the best idea for you would be to simply visit a few people (not necessarily the professors, diploma students also/better know what they are using) in your university -preferably people doing stuff that you are interested in- and ask them for advice. If you do, pls post your insights you got from that here - other's might be interested in the results.

I think it boils down to the question why you (your society) give special rights/privileges to married hetero-couples. It probably has to to with supporting a lifestyle that the you seem worthy of support. If you don't see homosexual marriages as equally worthy of support, you support it less. The reasons why or why not homosexual marriages are more/less/equally worth of support of course vary from person to person (yes, I am aware that you are probably asking for exactly that - I just thought the question should be approached from a different direction). "Benefits".

So much for the upside of not being married: You can laugh at Hitler.

I think in the science forums, there is a variation of the law where Nazis and Hitler are replaced by Inquisition and errr ... dunno.

But that relationship held more like 17 hours and not 17 years. So that's one of the most out-of-scale Hitler comparisons I've ever seen.

What are you asking? For a symbol that can be used for the cross-product? Try "\times".

I wasn't talking about anything cross-product related, I was talking about the angle between two vectors in R².

- I didn't quote you. I didn't reply to your post at all, I kept the promise/threat that I "post the solution later - tomorrow". Up to a few seconds ago I thought I understood your comment/pun (although I had to use an online-dictionary to look up the term "obtuse"), but... - My dictionary disagrees with your definition of an obtuse angle: It claims it's an angle 90°<angle<180°, not >180° (which my dictionary claims to be called "reflex angle"). Keiner versteht mich !

I'm simply trying to clear up points that seemingly were unclear. I skip the wallet, so just post a picture of your wife. The guy who started the thread. There's a pseudo-language called "l33t" (english translation: "leet"). "Hatten" is the english translation of the l33t-name "h4tt3n".

Let's just say that ... ...is wrong, too. That's of course the same error I mentioned in my previous post. Your statement about the ranges of arcsin and arccos are probably true (too lazy checking for canonic definitions). Your statement that for arbitrary real-valued x, neither sin(x) nor cos(x) can be used to recover x definitely is true. But the point is: The range on my plot is not arbitrary but chosen for a reason. We are talking about the (undirected, i.e. no vector is chosen as reference) angle between two vectors. This angle is in [0°,180°], i.e. not an arbitrary real value. Cosine maps this range in an invertible way (meaning that from the value of the cosine you can extract the angle), sine does not. It's for Hatten do descide the relevance. What he said is that the scalar product can be used to find the cosine of the angle and that there is a way to easily get the sine of the angle (the cross-product style version). That's both true and the topic as such is pretty much covered with that. What I said is merely a remark on the usability of the sine and the cosine: The cosine can be used to obtain the angle, the sine can't. Personally I think the original question is already answered, so I don't restrain from discussing points beyond the original question (Hatten may complain if I'm wrong).

Ok, first on-the-fly notes while reading through it: Page 4: - Capitalization of "Red shifting" looks strange. Since you are the native english speaker I'll skip propositions of how to write it. - The word "Frequency" is misaligned - I don't understand the first point: What is a "higher gravity well"? Perhaps rephrase that ("higher inside a well" or something like that?). - I'd not reuse the term "lens" in point 3 or at least add additional information like "can bend light rays and thus effectively act like lenses". Page 5: - Typo: "Reimannian". Page 6: - Semicolon instead of ":" after "Examples". - Do manifolds really necessarily locally look like Euclidean space? The local metric of spacetime surely isn't (it's riemanian, in appropriate coordinates). - Perhaps add an emphasize "=> dimension of manifold" to the last point. Page 8: - First point misaligned. - Perhaps make g red as in the text to emphasize or write "A metric g...". Page 10: - Usage of symbols for coordinates is inconsistent between text and picture ([math] \phi \leftrightarrow \varphi [/math]). - Double-check the metric. It seems wrong to me that ds as a function of dtheta would be independent of phi. Note that the nomenclature in your picture is rather uncommon (at least to me); usually, theta is the angle to the z-axis. Page 11: - Same spelling error on Mr. Riemann, again. - Typo: "Pesudo-" Page 13: - I don't know what you are going to say verbally, but the break from Page 11 and 12 to page 13 is tremendous. Effectively, Gravitational bending is excluded by a global coordinate system (t,x,y,z) with the global [math]g=\eta[/math]. - Very nice picture (the lower one). Page 17: - The statement "vector can be rotated as it moves along the loop" might be misleading: After all, you want to parallel-transport it (which is actually not rotating it). Of course, once you come back to the original point, the vector will have changed, but I'm not sure if your statement really catches it. Don't have a better proposal how to formulate it, though. Page 19: - I proposed this when writing a comment on page 17 and then deleted the proposal seeing you actually did so, already. I'd go 3 right angles chosing the vector parallel to the first direction of parallel transport, though. I think that's easier to visualize and self-test for the audience. You might want to bring an apple and a pencil for your talk . Ok, that's from my first readthrough; haven't thought about the actual content, yet (not sure if I really want to, not sure if you'd really want me to ...) EDIT: Btw, how long are you planning to talk?

-1.

k, my earlier point was actually pretty simple: - The (undirected) angle between two vectors is in the range between 0° and 180°. The cosine of the angle assignes a unique value to each of these numbers, meaning that if cos(a) = cos(b) (for a and b being in the range mentioned), you know that a=b. Or in other words: If you know the cosine of the angle, you also know the angle. This is not true for the sine. The example sin(angle)=0 I mentioned of course is solved by angle=0 (both vectors pointing in the same direction). But: It's also solved by angle=180° (i.e. both vectors pointing in opposite directions). That's a completely different scenario and from the sine alone you cannot tell which of the two cases actually is true. Or in short: You cannot deduce the angle between two vectors from its sine.

Other suggestions would be "Volume-form" (a volume in 2D is an area) or "determinant". But I think it's best thinking of it in the way HallsofIvy suggested, by extending your R² to R³ in your mind and taking the cross-product (which then gives the signed area of the parallelogram spanned by the two vectors).

1) What's the energy for one photon of wavelength 300 nm ? 2) Assuming it's enough to free an electron, what will the resultant energy of the electron be? 3) What's the velocity of an electron with that energy? 4) How many photons of wavelength 300 mn are in 3.25x10^-19 J ? 5) (not part of the question): Ask yourself why that's the/an upper limit and not the actual number. 6) If you did my numbers step by step without really knowing what's going on, get off your computer and try to understand why I have chosen this order of steps.