studiot

But if you are not doing it right now you are not doing it period. I am just trying to show the shades and subtleties of meaning that can be expressed in English, using auxiliary verbs. "I do" can mean always, sometimes, once only or not at all. Separating time into three tenses just doesn't cut it.

Not according to the Oxford English. The word is the present tense of a verb, which has its roots in the Gothic 'skal' and the old Dutch 'zal' etc Will, it seems BTW, is also the present tense of an Old Gothic verb wilja, Old Dutch wil etc Thank you for getting me to look it up.

John, thank you for putting imatfaal's explanation into formal mathematical format. +1

with For comparison, I would say they can mean the exact opposite. I did..... often means "in the past I did (habitually), but I have stopped now and therefore will not do so in the future." Whereas I do.... implies continuation of the habit into the future. Since 'today' is Tuesday I cannot be travelling today (the present) so how can 'I do' be considered present? Surely it is an expression of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future only? Some auxiliary verbs are not used in all tenses eg "I used to travel" has no present or future tenses. Also we often require the context to complete or distinguish the meaning. Tricky no?

Remember that some auxiliary verbs take the infinitive: I do travel I did travel and some take the gerund I will be travelling I am travelling I was travelling The tense of 'I do travel' is interesting in the following sentence, said on a Tuesday. I do travel to Birmingham every Wednesday. Do it refer to the past or future (it cannot refer to the present can it?)

Is it? So what is the future tense of the verb 'to be' ? This website has some interesting thoughts. http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplefuture.html

An inspiring post, physica +1

IMHO This really doesn't belong in Physics, I don't know perhaps in Speculations or Philosophy. So far as I can tell, this post is about what you mean by "information" and also "computation", although I am not sure what your precise question is. Physics and Mathematics have specific definitions of both these terms that I'm pretty sure do not match yours so please tell us what you mean by them and spell out your question more succinctly.

How old is this computer? Modern computers (and modern cars) are designed so the fan(s) do not run all the time. Yes internal cleaning is a very good idea. Electrical apparatus attracts dust etc. But computer fans are designed to be self lubricating and can be damaged by lubricants.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/class-b-push-pull-amplifier.85631/#post-615183

Gosh people are having trouble understanding me today. Perhaps the bottle of Teachers I got from Tesco was overstrength? What was underlined in the quote I posted above my comment on Francis?

Was that all you had to say to the effort I put in on your behalf?

Ah I see the war was something to do with France(is)?

Do you have pay per letter in your posts?

My thoughts were stimulated by Turner's reformulation of Newtons 3 laws to one law equivalent to N3, with the first two derivable from this.

In Class A amplifiers each output device is conducting for the entire cycle of the signal (ie both positive and negative half cycles of the sine wave) Class A amplifiers may have one or two devices in the output stage. In Class B amplifiers each output device is conducting for exactly half the cycle of the signal, alternately. Class B amplifiers have two devices in the output stage. So one device conducts during the positive half cycle and the other device conducts during the negative half cycle, whilst the first device is non conducting or off. In Class C amplifiers each output device is conducting for less than a half cycle so there are periods of non conduction between positive and negative half cycles. The output waveshape is an amplified copy of the input for the conducting periods. Class C is used in radio transmitter amplifers. In Class D amplifiers each output device is conducting for less than a half cycle and the wave shape is a pulse, independent of the input.

Edit Sorry put this into the wrong thread. Moderator please delete this post.

The understatement of the year. I cannot think of a way to guarantee this, within the constraints mentioned (notably size). The simplest way I can think of is based on a model train set. If you have a runner that runs around a large enough track (it would have to be mechanically powered since you are not allowed to use electricity) the track could be marked off to any desired accuracy and the measure time being the number of laps plus the graduated partial lap time. However a track large enough to mark out in 0.1 seconds would be way larger than the 800 mm allowed. It may be worth doing some trials to see however. Some figures: If it takes the runner 10 seconds to complete a circle that's 360 degrees ie 36 degrees in 1 second ie 3.6 degrees in 0.1 seconds. How big a protractor do you need to measure this? Of course the next stage is to turn the runner and track into a fixed mark and have a spinning protractor. I would advise against water clocks, they are notoriously difficult to regulate. The ancient Greeks had an hour of variable length because of this, there is an interesting story in my history of engineering in the ancient world about this.

Well Cameron needs to get busy putting his house in order before he leaves then.

Hello Ben and welcome.

Welcome RB, I would suggest looking for modular courses that you can follow at your own rate and accumulate modules towards your degree. Some of these can be followed by distance learning. I think the UK Open University still allows international students. You only need to take one module per year. Last time I looked you needed six modules for an ordinary degree and eight for an honours.

Thank you for the link, xyzt. It will take a while to go through it all. I have so far read the Wiki article, which promised more in the headline than it supplied in the detail.

elfmotat, you're quite right and what's worse I've made that mistake before. Very red face - I need a long holiday. Sorry about that, physica.

Actually you neither could nor did state Avogadro's Law. I only asked if you could to find out if I needed to explain the law first, because Avogadro's Law is the law controlling the answer to your question. So If necessary I would have explained the law first and then how to use it to answer questions about chemical equations, there being little point advising you to use it if you have not yet come across it. I don't wish you ill but i am sure you will struggle if you approach your teachers in this fashion. On the other hand we can still offer a pleasant and meaningful discussion at Science Forums if you so wish.