studiot

So it's not a field. To get a field whose elements are polynomials, or even more complicated, rational functions (i.e. the ratio of two polynomials) you have to allow for powers higher than appear in the original polynomials.

Still not sure what you are trying to do. (1) Fails the identity axiom: "there exist two different elements 0 and 1 in F such that a + 0 = a and a · 1 = a. " You can use either the 2 binary or 4 binary operations definition, they are equivalent since the second 2 reverse or undo the first two operations. The simplest field is the set {0, 1}

(1) No a field can't be a set with a single member. The coefficients of a polynomial are drawn form a field. (2) Yes some sets of polynomials can form a field. Not sure what the rest of your post is about though.

I assume you mean putting steel plates on the underside and topside of the timber and bolting through vertically as opposed to the original proposal How would you disguise the bottom steel?

I haven't visited either in a while but here are some good resources for you. Technibble is a trade computer repair site. https://www.technibble.com/forums/ Major Geeks is an amateur comp repair site but has lots of good resources. http://forums.majorgeeks.com/index.php

Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear, Surely someone has said this before. Gravity acts towards the centre of mass of the Earth. This is nothing to do with rotation.

It is, however, good to see members doing their best to offer help. One thought about bots. Presumably they don't look at the adverts that fund SF. (I don't much either so perhaps that les me out) I don't know what use could be made of that information in identifying them. How do the bots manage to click on the save button, by the way. I seem to have lost another post his afternoon through fumbling this.

You could just curl up with this good book https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=anderson+tau+zero&oq=anderson+tau+zero&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l4.1928.8716.0.9839.17.17.0.0.0.0.451.3638.0j6j10j0j1.17.0..3..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.17.3622...0j0i131k1._CEwwF8hsy0 Janus, you have a way of cutting through the crap to a simple explanation in Relativity (and perhaps other matters). I take my hat off to you. +1

Perhaps I used the wrong word, "writers" includes writers of posts here. In fact my comments here have been directed towards (not necessarily against) posts here. I don't think I commented directly in this thread on something Einstein etc wrote In particular bvr offered 'equilibrium', whereby a four force 'balanced' a three force, which is unacceptable.

If more than one definition / interpretation is available, then it is incumbent upon a writer to make it plain which one is in use at any point in the writing. Otherwise it can easily lead to one definition being set against another, as I noted.

One of the hopes with the new software was that trash posting would be reduced (I dare not say eliminated ... oh heaven) , but the rash posters seem to have found their way round the new layout a lot better than I have. Are there any statistics yet to show if the reduction goal has been achieved? Or are the mods having to work harder than ever to remove this stuff ? This morning it seems to be at the same level as before and the trash posters certainly seem to get posted very quickly after joining. See the screenshot below. There seem to be plenty of instances where there is no other site activity between joining and graffiti activity. The actual continuous list of trashtivity was much longer but I couldn't get any more on screen.

In Newtonian mechanics, which is all we need here, gravity is most definitely a force. The interpretation of gravity as some sort of warping of spacetime (not space) is non Newtonian. You should not mix Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.

I am currently in the north of Scotland, but expect to be back home by the weekend when I will have the data tables and time to check calculations if that is any good. I could easily envy your choice of domicile, except I found the strawberries oversize and tasteless.

What do you mean by solid? Small molecules can seep through what seem to us to be impenetrable solid barriers. Helium seeps out of helium balloons, which eventually deflate. Methane seeps through solid concrete floor slabs so special measure have to be taken when building over methane producing sites eg old rubbish tips. Water seeps through solid earth and some solid rocks.

I am going to say +1 for encouragement about the emboldened and underlined bit. You show definite improvement. The rest is, I'm afraid, a cheeky bit of misunderstanding. Yes a good question "If I'm subject to constant acceleration why am I not moving at some colossal velocity?" Standing on the surface of the Earth, the only acceleration you are subject to is the acceleration due to the Earth's (and your)rotation which is constantly changing your direction of motion. You are not accelerating along the line from you to the centre of the Earth because you are subject to the balance of two forces, whose net sum is zero. The resulting acceleration due to a zero (sum) is, of course, zero. The two forces are the body force due to gravity downwards and the reaction between you and the surface upwards. Meanwhile I see swans has replied, perhaps he can type more quickly than I can.

Two things should be noted. The economics of commercial construction will be very different from the economics of DIY, where labour cost is not usually counted. The proposed flitch beam can never act like an I beam or RSJ. The webs in such beams carry almost all the (vertical) shear stress, whilst the flanges carry almost all the bending stress. The proposed design has no webs, which is why I asked for some facts and figures.

Are the countless others watching from the sidelines or are they just passing through? They can't be members since the membership is finite Are they actually following a thread or just visiting the once? If they choose to remain non members do they merit consideration? Since you have been here much longer than I, can you offer evidence for these assertions?

This type of construction is known as a Flitch Beam. Yes they are a traditional way to strengthen wooden beams. https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=flitch+beam&oq=flitch&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l4.1264.2745.0.5141.6.6.0.0.0.0.183.1030.0j6.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.6.1020...0i131k1.gFzds4YGAuw Success in its working relies on substantial close (shear) connection between the wood and the metal, over the length of the beam. This means many through bolts, tightened up over large area bearing plate washers. Post some facts and figures for better design info, courtesy SF design services.

Sensei did copy my workaround - to add spaces either side of the stolen letters. Hopefully everyone, particularly those involved in Chemistry, now appreciate the message and understand that I am not just being awkward.

No that is not osmosis that is diffusion. When you refer to balancing, the correct term to use is concentration. Diffusion occurs because of a difference of concentration of some substance or particles such as electrons between one place and another. The particles of the substance tend to move from higher towards lower concentration. When there is an opening as you describe this diffusion can take place freely. If there is some sort of barrier then a pressure or potential is set up where the particles want to move (diffuse) but can only do so if they can pass the barrier. In the case of osmosis the barrier is a semi-permeable membrane. In the case of a PN junction the barrier is electrical. Can you see how the electron concentration is different in the P and N regions? A lattice contains atoms with the ionic central cores in a fixed array and some of the atoms electrons free to roam the lattice, but these electrons are still there. So the net charge on a lattice is zero. So it is electrically neutral. It is vital that you understand neutrality to understand PN junctions. Why are you making things difficult for me by not answering my questions? They are simply there to help make a better explanatory post.

Note that the editor deletes certain content. Have you ever written a chemical rate equation, involving concentration? Here is the original of the previous post. Note what is there that is missing from the previous post.

and?

So the IT crowd are trying to steal the international symbol for Boron, written in a valid chemical equation. Does this also apply to the symbols for Uranium and Sulphur and that chemists can no longer use these elements? I thought that I would not be allowed to write [ B ] any more when I woke up this morning.

I have it on good authority (bimbo36 in your more science thread) that religion is more fun than science or the technologically best solutions, which are apparently not fun.

d/dt [C] = k [A]ab Edit The text at the top is how it comes out The screenshot extract below is how it should look and how it does look before posting