Monday, December 31, 2018

Power spectral density vs Energy spectral density



I read the following on Wikipedia:



Power spectral density:


The above definition of energy spectral density is most suitable for transients, i.e., pulse-like signals, for which the Fourier transforms of the signals exist. For continued signals that describe, for example, stationary physical processes, it makes more sense to define a power spectral density (PSD), which describes how the power of a signal or time series is distributed over the different frequencies, as in the simple example given previously.



I don't quite understand that paragraph. The first part says that "for some signals .. the Fourier transform does not exist".




  • For which signals (in the context that we are discussing) does the Fourier transform not exist, and we therefore need to resort to the PSD rather than using the energy spectral density?





  • When obtaining the power spectral density, why can't we compute it directly? Why do we need to estimate it?




  • Finally, on this topic, I have read about methods that use Kayser-windows when computing the PSD over time. What is the purpose of these windows in PSD estimation?






questions - Difference between どこですか and どこにいますか/どこにあり ますか?




(1) 本はどこですか。


(2) 本はどこにありますか。



Unless I'm mistaken, both those sentences mean something like "where is the book", what's the difference between using です and あります to indicate position?


I wouldn't have said (2) for "where is the book" but in an exercise where the question was "where is the switch" and the answer "next to the door", the answer used にあります so I assumed it was also in the question. It made me wonder when it was better to use どこですか instead of どこにありますか.


(Also, if there's an error in my sentences don't just correct them, also give an explanation to my question please)



Answer



The verb ある is translated "be located", so there's usually little semantic difference between どこですか? and どこにありますか? This rule can be further extended to XはYにあります = XはYです for a thing X and location Y.



本は机の上にあります。 = 本は机の上です。 The book is on the desk.



ジョンは秋葉原にいます。 = ジョンは秋葉原です。 John is in Akihabara.



However, of course, the extended form ~にあります is required when it's not obvious that Y is a location name in this construction.



ロナルドはマクドナルドです。 Ronald is McDonald. / Ronald is at McDonald's.
→ ロナルドはマクドナルドにいます。 Ronald is at McDonald's.



Now, the pronoun どこ, unlike English where, can not only indicate a location but also a group, community or organization (as well as ここ・そこ・あそこ), thus also affected by the ambiguity in some context.



出版社はどこですか? Who is the publisher? / Where is the publisher?

→ 出版社はどこにありますか? Where is the publisher?



organic chemistry - Mechanism for basic hydrolysis of α-chloronitrile to ketone?


enter image description here


In Corey's 1969 prostaglandin synthesis,1 compound 2 is formed from compound 1 by:



[...] treatment with 2.5 equiv of potassium hydroxide (added as a hot saturated aqueous solution) in dimethyl sulfoxide for 14 hr at 25-30°.



Can anybody explain the mechanism of this reaction? I thought of an $\mathrm{S_N2}$ reaction, followed by nitrile hydrolysis and elimination of $\ce{CO2}$. But $\mathrm{S_N2}$ there seems impossible, and the elimination of HCl should be more reasonable than decarboxylation.


Reference



(1) Corey, E. J.; Weinshenker, N. M.; Schaaf, T. K.; Huber, W. Stereo-controlled synthesis of dl-prostaglandins F2α and E2. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1969, 91 (20), 5675–5677. DOI: 10.1021/ja01048a062.



Answer



Your analysis is slightly incorrect, actually. If you do a $\mathrm{S_N2}$ on the chloride, hydrolyse the nitrile, and decarboxylate, you end up with the wrong oxidation state:


Proposed substitution, hydrolysis and decarboxylation route leads to an alcohol.


Instead, if you actually get to the cyanohydrin, you could (in theory) simply lose $\ce{CN-}$ to form the ketone:


A marginally better but still incorrect route: loss of cyanide ion from cyanohydrin


However, a $\mathrm{S_N2}$ reaction at that centre is going to be difficult, to say the least.


The reaction has been studied by Shiner et al.,1 who determined that the primary site of attack is likely to be the nitrile. They wrote:



No mechanistic studies of the hydrolysis step have previously been reported, although pathways involving nucleophilic displacement of chloride or cyanide, affording intermediate cyano- or chlorohydrins, have been proposed. A priori we regarded both $\mathrm{S_N2}$ and $\mathrm{S_N1}$ displacements as improbable in these systems.




The immediate product of nitrile hydrolysis is the amide, and the α-chloroamide intermediates were actually isolated:


Hydrolysis of nitrile to amide


The mechanism after this involves a cyclisation of the amide onto the $\ce{C-Cl}$. The exact steps are not entirely clear. However, the following was proposed:


enter image description here




Reference


(1) Shiner, C. S.; Fisher, A. M.; Yacoby, F. Intermediacy of α-chloro amides in the basic hydrolysis of α-chloro nitriles to ketones. Tetrahedron Lett. 1983, 24 (51), 5687–5690. DOI: 10.1016/S0040-4039(00)94173-X.


everyday chemistry - Why is the recipe of Coca Cola still a secret?


Why is the recipe for Coca-Cola still a secret? I think that given the current state of technology, it should be proficient enough to find any of the secret ingredients in Coca Cola.


Any thoughts? Can we make a 100% identical clone of Coca-Cola next week?




halacha - Killing gentile under threat of death


If someone points a gun at Reuvein's head and tells him, "Kill this Jew or I'll kill you," the halachah is that Reuvein must let himself be killed. What if someone points a gun at Reuvein's head and tells him, "Kill this non-Jew or I'll kill you."


What is the halachah in that scenario?



Answer



It's not clear what the Halocho is regarding killing a non Jew. The texts have all been censored to make them PC.


The Rambam in הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש - פרק שני says:



יא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה מִי שֶׁהָרַג גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא-יד) 'וְכִי יָזִד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ'. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עַל הָעַכּוּ''ם. ‏




The Kesef Mishneh then adds:



ישראל שהרג גר תושב וכו'. במכילתא וכי יזיד איש על רעהו רעהו להוציא את אחרים ומשמע לרבינו דגר תושב בכלל אחרים כמו שהוא לענין גלות כמו שיתבאר. איסי בן עקיבא אומר קודם מתן תורה היינו מוזהרים על שפיכות דמים לאחר מתן תורה שהוחמרו הוקלו באמת אמרו פטור מדיני בשר ודם ודינם מסור לשמים. ‏



It would appear that a Jew only gets a heavenly, but not a corporeal, punishment for killing a non-Jew.


In that case it doesn't seem he'd be allowed to choose to get killed rather than kill the non-Jew.




After further research:


According to the Gemara in Pesachim (25b) the reason for getting killed rather then killing is because of מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דההוא גברא סומק טפי - who says your blood is redder than his.



Rashi there explains:



מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק. כלומר, כלום באתה לישאל על כך אלא מפני שאתה יודע שאין מצוה עומדת בפני פיקוח נפש, וסבור אתה שאף זו תדחה מפני פיקוח נפשך, אין זו דומה לשאר עבירות דמ''מ יש כאן אבוד נפש, והתורה לא התירה לדחות את המצוה אלא מפני חיבת נפשו של ישראל וכאן עבירה נעשית ונפש אבודה. מי יאמר שנפשך חביבה לפני המקום יותר משל זה? דילמא של זה חביבה טפי עליו! ונמצא עבירה נעשית ונפש אבודה. ‏



Rashi explicitly says 'how do you know that Gcd prefers your life more than the other Jew's life?


And again in Yoma (82b):



מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי. כלומר מאי דעתיך למשרי מילתא משום וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם? טעמו של דבר לפי שחביבה נפשן של ישראל לפני המקום יותר מן המצות. אמר הקב''ה תבטל המצוה ויחיה זה! אבל עכשיו שיש כאן ישראל נהרג והמצוה בטילה למה ייטב בעיני המקום לעבור על מצותו? למה יהיה דמך חביב עליו יותר מדם חבירך ישראל:.‏



Here Rashi mentions twice that מאי חזית is referring to Jews only.



organic chemistry - Carbocation stability order


I was wondering whether the following order (from here) is correct:


enter image description here




  • In the first inequality, why did 9 hyperconjugations dominated resonance effect of benzene ring?





  • In the last inequality doesn't the 2 hyperconjugations of vinylic carbocation overpower the methyl carbocation?




In middle there is:
allyl = secondary



  • Why is there an equality here when resonance dominates inductive effect?




halacha - Basar Shenis'aleim Min Ha'ayin


Ashkenazim are not concerned for meat being unwatched for a few minutes as per the Ramah. I want to know do Sefardim have this concern? Meaning, in a work situation, when a Sefardi puts a meat sandwich in the company refrigerator, can they eat it?




Sunday, December 30, 2018

history - Which surnames are Kohanim's and why?


It is well known that is a person has a certain surname (last name) they are more likely to be a Kohen.


Examples:



  • Cohen - for obvious reasons

  • Kahn

  • Katz - stands for "Kohen Tzedek"



What are some of the other names that are popular by Kohanim, and how did they come to be?



Answer



Hebrew Wikipedia has an extensive discussion on the matter.


Also see Chapter 2 of יופי של עברית by אבשלום קור


, כהנא, כגן, קוגן, קגן, כגנוביץ, קאהן, קון ,קיהן, כהנמן, כוהנר, ברכגן, ברקן , קצמן, כצובר


Kahana, Kagan, Kogen, Kagen, Kagnovitch, Kahan, Kohn, Kihan, Kahanamen, Kohner, Brechgan, Barkan, Katzman, Katzover (the last two being later extensions of Katz)


The 'g' sound comes in place of the 'h' sound in Slavic languages.


מזא"ה (= מזרע אהרן הכהן)‏


Maza - MeZera Aharon HaKohen (from the descendants of Aharon the Priest)



חדאד


Hadad - according to the community of Jews from Djerba, Tunisia, Hadad is a Kohen family which was disqualified (because of inappropriate marriages)


זלכה - זכר לכהן הגדול


Zalka - common among Iraqi priests, Zecher LeKohen Gadol - in memory of the high priest


גינדי


Gindi - among Jews from Halab (Aleppo), Syria this is a priestly family


בנצ'קובסקי


Benchkovsky


רפפורט


Rappaport - many of them descended from the author of the Shach ש"ך (a book which itself means שפתי כהן, lips of the priest). (See for instance, Rabbi Shabtai Rapaport, a teacher in Bar Ilan University).



כהן אברי"ש - אני בן רבי ישמעאל


Avrish - Ani ben Rabbi Yishmael (I am the son of Rabbi Yishmael) - according to legend, this family is a descendant of Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest.


קפלן


Kaplan - from the same Latin root as 'chaplain'


תומא הכהן - תורה וברכת משרתי אל


Tuma - Torah U'Birkat Meshartei El (Torah and the Blessing of the Servants of God) - a priestly family living in Pekiin since the Second Temple


הכהן מלמד


Malamud - priestly family from Shiraz, Iran with a number of scholarly descendants (of course most Malamuds are not priests)


כהן ירמו"ש - יורו משפטך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל


Yarmush - Yoru Mishpatecha LeYaakov, VeToratecha LeYisrael - Teach your laws to Yaakov and your Torah to Israel - a quote from Yaakov's blessing to the tribe of Levi



כהן יהונתן


Yonatan - family of Algerian priestly Jews


כהן טנוג'י


Tanugi - family of Moroccan priestly Jews from Tangier


כהן אלמג'רבי


Al Magerbi - family of Tunisian priestly Jews from Djerba. Name is from the Tunisia's region in North Africa, commonly known as the Maghreb


Some funny stories -- In the 9th Knesset, Yigal Cohen was elected as a representative for Likud - except they already had a Yigal Cohen in the Knesset! So the first one changed his name to Cohen-Orgad כהן-אורגד (Orgad being the initials of the names of his children)


In 1980, there were two soccer players on the same team named Eli Cohen. So the newspapers simply referred to one as אלי כהן הקטן (the small Eli Cohen) and אלי כהן הגדול (the big Eli Cohen).


There are many cases in history (as seen above) and in modern Israeli life where individuals with the last name Cohen hyphenated their names in order to be more easily identifiable.


equipment - Order of internal pressure resistance to expect from laboratory glassware?


I have a need to use more pressure differential than can be afforded by vacuum vs atmospheric pressure alone, and so I've come to consider using pressurised laboratory glassware for part of my setup.


I've made a little bit of research here on stack-exchange and on google and the general information I've gathered is that the physical shape of laboratory glassware and reaction vessel lends better to resisting external pressure (when we use them with internal vacuum), than to resisting internal pressure, though I'm left wondering what to expect to be doable in terms of pressurising glassware.



I have two pieces of glassware I'm considering using on the pressurised end of my setup: One is a 5,000mL flat bottom flask and the other is a 20,000mL flat bottom flask. Both are borosilicate glass, neither are perfect (they both have one or two tiny air bubbles in the glass at places) but both have shown very good resistance while being used with internal vacuum.


Is it realistic to expect them to be fine while adding an internal pressure up to 3 Bars? (I would put the glassware inside of a big metal cylinder for safety in case of "explosion")


What will be the best Resistance vs Glassware Shape / Glassware Volume / Temperature / etc. ?


Does anyone have any tips on the topic?



Answer



Put the flask in a metal container, with a large (at least three times the volume of the flask, for 3 atm pressure) bladder or sylphon (metal bellows) in the supply to the inner flask. Pressurize the outer metal container with air or inert gas.


The absolute pressure in the reaction vessel should be the same as the outer vessel (unless the reactants outgas rapidly), but there would be no differential pressure difference, ergo, no additional stress on the glass.


Or just conduct the whole experiment in a hyperbaric chamber... not a wimpy 0.1 atm plastic bubble, but something like this 10 atm unit, with margin for error. ;-)


organic chemistry - Is this sydnone aromatic?


Is the following molecule aromatic?


Sydnone



It does seem like it will be aromatic because it is similar to furan. I am confused because of the positive charge on the $\ce{N}$.




halacha - Is Buddhism Avodah Zarah?


Is Buddhism Avodah Zarah, atheistic, or a philosophy not related to any specific brand of theism?


If it is Avodah Zarah, then one would not be able to enter a Buddhist temple, benefit from items of worship, etc. If it is atheistic, than one may not be allowed to read its writings, but if it's just a philosophy, it may not be incompatible with Judaism at all.




particle と - What does adding と after an adverb do?



For example, what is the difference between ゆっくり and ゆっくりと?




animals - Eating Meat: What Changed?


Adam wasn't allowed to eat meat. After the mabul (Flood) we were suddenly permitted to eat (Bereshit 9:3). What changed (ie what was the reason we weren't allowed to before, why are we allowed to now and what changed after the flood)?




The grammar of ~かれ~かれ


Consider these:






  • 遅かれ早かれ




  • 良【よ】かれ悪【あ】しかれ





What is the underlying grammatical make up of this ~かれ~かれ pattern (if any)? Is this pattern productive(i.e. can be extended to arbitrary words)?



Answer




The 〜かれ appearing here is the imperative form. I suspect this exact construction is no longer productive in modern Japanese as adjectives are no longer thought of as having imperative forms; however, the dictionary offers this modern rephrasing of 善【よ】かれ悪【あ】しかれ:



よいにしろ、悪いにしろ



So in some sense the abstract construction of "imperative + imperative" to mean "be it ... or ..." still survives. (The "be" appearing in the English version might also be construed as an imperative, but it's probably a subjunctive.) The thesaurus (for want of a better word) lists some alternatives:



  • ~にしろ…にしろ

  • 〜にせよ…にせよ

  • 〜にしても…にしても



samuel shmuel book of - The Addition of the letter 'he' in Yonatan's name


I've been trying to understand the significance to to addition of the letter 'he' in the name of Yonatan in 1 Shmuel 19:1 making it Yehonatan. Is there any connection here with the name change Avram to Avraham? Are there any recommended sources to learn more?


(related question about an extra 'he' in Yosef's name)





Help with Kalman Filter implementation for estimating 3D position


I wrote a kalman Filter implementation using the Eigen Library in C++ and also using the implementation at this link to test my filter: My prediction step looks like this:


void KalmanFilter::Predict()
{
// state Estimate = state transition matrix * previous state
// No control input present.

x = A * x;


// State Covariance Matrix = (State Transition Matrix * Previous State
Covariance matrix * (State Transition Matrix)^T ) + Process Noise

P = A * P * A.transpose() + Q;
}

while my update step is:



void KalmanFilter::Update(VectorXd z)
{
//Kalman Gain = (State Covariance Matrix * Measurement matrix.transpose) * (H*P*H^T + Measurement Noise)^-1
K = (P * H.transpose()) * (H * P * H.transpose()+ R).inverse();

//Estimated Stated = Estimated state + Kalman Gain (Measurement Innovation)
x = x + K*(z - H * x);

//State Covariance matrix = (Identity Matrix of the size of x.size * x.size) - K* H * P;
long x_size = x.size();

MatrixXd I = MatrixXd::Identity(x_size, x_size);
P = (I - K * H) * P ;

}

My initial values are:


pos_x = 0.0;
pos_y = 0.0;
pos_z = 1.0;
vel_x = 10.0;

vel_y = 0.0;
vel_z = 0.0;
acc_x = 0.0;
acc_y = 0.0;
acc_z = -9.81;

and I'm generating "fake data" by doing the following in a loop:


double c = 0.1; // Drag resistance coefficient
double damping = 0.9 ; // Damping


double sigma_position = 0.1 ; // position_noise

// Create simulated position data
for (int i = 0; i < N; i ++)
{
acc_x = -c * pow(vel_x, 2); // calculate acceleration ( Drag Resistance)

vel_x += acc_x * dt; // Integrate acceleration to give you velocity in the x axis.

pos_x += vel_x * dt; // Integrate velocity to return the position in the x axis


acc_z = -9.806 + c * pow(vel_z, 2); // Gravitation + Drag

vel_z += acc_z * dt; // z axis velocity

pos_z += vel_z * dt; // position in z axis

// generate y position here later.

if(pos_z < 0.01)

{
vel_z = -vel_z * damping;
pos_z += vel_z * dt;
}

if (vel_x < 0.1)
{
acc_x = 0.0;
acc_z = 0.0;
}


// add some noise
pos_x = pos_x + sigma_position * process_noise(generator);
pos_y = pos_y + sigma_position * process_noise(generator);
pos_z = pos_z + sigma_position * process_noise(generator);

I then run my prediction and update step by:


// Prediction Step
kalmanFilter.Predict();


// Correction Step
kalmanFilter.Update(z);

where z is a 3 x 1 vector containing pos_x, pos_y and pos_z


My State Transition Matrix A looks like this: A


and P is:


P


R is a 3 x 3 Matrix of:


R


and Q is G * G.transpose()* a * a;

where G is a 9 x 1 Matrix of


G and


a is 0.1 ( acceleration process noise)


My issue is my estimated position for y and z are off and diverge from the "real" positions. If you look at the following graphs,


This is what pos_x looks like: X


This is what pos_y looks like: Y


And finally Z: Z


This is my first foray with Kalman filters and I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong here. My final goal would be to use this to estimate the position of a drone. Additionally, I have the following questions:


In a real life situation for a drone for example, how do you about choosing your Process Noise if you can't directly observe the process? Do you simply just pick arbitrary values?


My apologies for the long post. Any help is appreciated.





Saturday, December 29, 2018

halacha - May a Jew be a professional boxer?


Are there any halachic problems with a Jew being a professional boxer?




organic chemistry - Formation of a stable hydrate



Question: Which of the following does not form a stable hydrate? enter image description here



I think they mean nucleophilic addition of water. For compound (C), on reaction with water, the product formed is


enter image description here



The product has lesser bond angle strain than the reactant. Hence, the compound formed is stable. This is because $\ce{sp^2}$ hybridised carbonyl carbon requires $120^{\circ}$ but only gets $60^{\circ}$ in cyclopropanone. But converting it into a diol makes the angle $109^{\circ}$ which reduces strain to a large extent. In fact, cyclobutanone is also reactive to water.


For (B) however, there is not much change in the bond angle strain. The initial angle is already close to the required angle.


What can I say about (A) and (D)?



Answer




What can I say about (A) and (D)?



When a carbonyl compound and water are present together, an equilibrium is set up between the carbonyl compound and the corresponding gem-diol. Like any equilibrium, this equilibrium can be shifted to one side or the other by factors that stabilize (or destabilize) one side or the other.


If water is present, poly-vicinal carbonyl compounds usually exist as hydrates. Drawing the resonance structure of a carbonyl compound we see the the $\ce{C=O}$ bond is highly polarized with the carbon terminus being the positive end. If we have several carbonyls adjacent to one another, then each carbonyl has this same polarization and an electrostatic destabilization results. This is particularly true for the central carbon since there is a partial positive charge on each of the carbons attached to it.


enter image description here



In order to avoid this electrostatic destabilization, such compounds will form a hydrate at the central (the most electrostatically destabilized) carbon. In the hydrated form there is no repulsive partial positive charge on adjacent carbons.


You've already figured out why cyclopropanone exists as a hydrate. So the correct answer is B, since there is no driving force that would provide any special stabilization of its hydrate.


grammar - How does -ki form of i-adjectives work? (e.g. 愛しき)


In one of the Bleach anime ending songs, "Hanabi" has the following line:



繋ぎゆく この想い 愛しき 君



"itoshiki" seems to come from "itoshii", but how does this -ki form of i-adjective work? I found a few other adjectives that have -ki forms, e.g. 幼き{おさなき}, 素晴らしき{すばらしき}, 古き{ふるき}, 良き{よき} etc but that's about it.



Is this form productive? Is it selective, i.e. only some i-adjectives can have this form? Or has it become archaic, and thus only limited to those that survived into present Japanese?



Answer



The -ki ending is the archaic rentaikee (adnominal form). It used to be standardly used in relative clauses/attributive uses of an adjective. The change from -ki to the present -i is called i-ombin. Today, this is used only when the writer wants to use the archaic form for some literary effect such as in literature, lyrics, poems, etc.


halacha - Can flowing water be used as walls for a sukkah?


Is it permissible to make a sukkah with walls made of flowing water (assuming that schach can be suspended over these 'walls')?


Furthermore, would the water need to be 'continuous' or 'wall-like' (see image), or can it be a more broken flow as long as it covered the wall area by a certain amount (analagous to levud)?


Why would someone want to do this... may reasons. It can remind us of the well of Miriam that followed us in the desert. Water is analogous to Torah i.e. surrounded by Torah. On sukkot we performed water libations. And perhaps the most direct: we read about the splitting of the sea at the end of sukkot, with specific reference to the walls of water that the Jews walked through (Shemot 14:29): "וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ בַיַּבָּשָׁה, בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם; וְהַמַּיִם לָהֶם חֹמָה, מִימִינָם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָם. "


enter image description here




Matlab: Radix 2 FFT with 8 Channels and High Number of Inputs



I'm making in Matlab an 8 channel FFT, according to an online tutorial I found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsJGuI7e_ZQ&t=957s . It works fine for the same number of inputs as shown in the video (N=8), but as I increase N (say for N=128) it no longer works.


I am not sure why it no longer works as I increase N, but I suspect it has something to do with the twiddle factors. I assumed the twiddle factors would have an exponent increasing by 8 after each stage, but maybe they change in a different way as one increases N?


Here is a picture from the YouTube tutorial, at 15:16 Snippet from YouTube tutorial


Here is a signal flow diagram of my Matlab code


Signal Flow Diagram


And below is my actual MatLab code. If one uses N=8 (which you can define at top of code) then output is correct. Using N=128 (or other higher values) produces an incorrect result.


I am very confused about what could be causing this problems with the output. Any thoughts?


Much appreciated,


clear all


% Generate input data sequence and plot
N = 128;
f1 = 10;
num_cycles = 2;
fs = f1*N/num_cycles;
x_time = 0:1/fs:num_cycles/f1-1/fs;
X = sin(x_time*2*pi*f1);
plot(x_time,X);
title('Input Waveform');


% Split inputs into eight channels
X0_0 = X(1:8:N);
X0_1 = X(5:8:N);
X0_2 = X(3:8:N);
X0_3 = X(7:8:N);
X0_4 = X(2:8:N);
X0_5 = X(6:8:N);
X0_6 = X(4:8:N);
X0_7 = X(8:8:N);


% Compute FFT of each channel
X1_0 = fft(X0_0);
X1_1 = fft(X0_1);
X1_2 = fft(X0_2);
X1_3 = fft(X0_3);
X1_4 = fft(X0_4);
X1_5 = fft(X0_5);
X1_6 = fft(X0_6);
X1_7 = fft(X0_7);


% Generate Twiddle factors
Wn=exp(-1i*2*pi/N);

% Produce output of first stage of butterfly

for k=0:(N/8)-1
X2_0(k+1) = X1_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X1_1(k+1);
X2_1(k+1) = X1_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X1_1(k+1);
X2_2(k+1) = X1_2(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X1_3(k+1);
X2_3(k+1) = X1_2(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X1_3(k+1);

X2_4(k+1) = X1_4(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X1_5(k+1);
X2_5(k+1) = X1_4(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X1_5(k+1);
X2_6(k+1) = X1_6(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X1_7(k+1);
X2_7(k+1) = X1_6(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X1_7(k+1);
end

% Produce output of second stage of butterfly

for k=0:(N/8)-1
X3_0(k+1) = X2_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X2_2(k+1);

X3_1(k+1) = X2_1(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+2)) * X2_3(k+1);
X3_2(k+1) = X2_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X2_2(k+1);
X3_3(k+1) = X2_1(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+6)) * X2_3(k+1);
X3_4(k+1) = X2_4(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X2_6(k+1);
X3_5(k+1) = X2_5(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+2)) * X2_7(k+1);
X3_6(k+1) = X2_4(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X2_6(k+1);
X3_7(k+1) = X2_5(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+6)) * X2_7(k+1);
end

% Produce output of third stage of butterfly


for k=0:(N/8)-1
X4_0(k+1) = X3_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8)) * X3_4(k+1);
X4_1(k+1) = X3_1(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+1)) * X3_5(k+1);
X4_2(k+1) = X3_2(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+2)) * X3_6(k+1);
X4_3(k+1) = X3_3(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+3)) * X3_7(k+1);
X4_4(k+1) = X3_0(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+4)) * X3_4(k+1);
X4_5(k+1) = X3_1(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+5)) * X3_5(k+1);
X4_6(k+1) = X3_2(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+6)) * X3_6(k+1);
X4_7(k+1) = X3_3(k+1) + (Wn^(k*8+7)) * X3_7(k+1);

end

% Merge X4 into final output

c = 1;
for k = 1:N/8
X5(c:c+7) = [X4_0(k);X4_1(k);X4_2(k);X4_3(k);X4_4(k);X4_5(k);X4_6(k);X4_7(k)];
c = c+8;
end


% Plot expected FFT and Butterfly FFT
figure
matlab_fft=fft(X);
plot(abs(matlab_fft));
title('Matlab FFT');
figure
plot(abs(X5));
title('Butterfly FFT');

Answer



Your problem is probably with twiddle factor adjustment. Below is a working code for 8 channel implementation of FFT (where the last 3 stages are explicitly computed, but not in a butterfly structure). Its derived based on the recursive structure of FFT. Where the splitting algorithm of N-point DFT into 2 N/2 point DFTs is applied for three consequtive stages.



Mathematical definition of the solution is as follows: Assume that $N$-point DFT $X[k]$ is split into two $N/2$ point DFTS according to the even and odd partitioning as usual: $$ X[k] = X_e[k] + W_N^k X_o[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N-1 $$


where the twiddle factor is $W_N = e^{-j\frac{2\pi}{N}}$ and note that the partial DFTs $X_e[k]$ and $X_o[k]$ are of length $N/2$and periodic. Then we can further decompose those $X_e[k]$ and $X_o[k]$ recursively to reach


$$\begin{align} X_e[k] &= X_{ee}[k] + W_{N/2}^k X_{eo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/2-1 \\ X_o[k] &= X_{oe}[k] + W_{N/2}^k X_{oo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/2-1 \\ \end{align} $$


And further split those $N/4$ point DFTs into $N/8$ points DFTS which will be the channel signal DFTS.


$$\begin{align} X_{ee}[k] &= X_{eee}[k] + W_{N/4}^k X_{eeo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/4-1 \\ X_{eo}[k] &= X_{eoe}[k] + W_{N/4}^k X_{eoo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/4-1 \\ X_{oe}[k] &= X_{oee}[k] + W_{N/4}^k X_{oeo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/4-1 \\ X_{oo}[k] &= X_{ooe}[k] + W_{N/4}^k X_{ooo}[k] ~~~,~~~\text{ for } k=0,1,...,N/4-1 \\ \end{align} $$


Below is an implementation of the above splitting algorithm. Note that your definition of the signals X0_0,X_0_1...,X0_7 is actually correct according to this splitting mode. But the butterfly computations seems not right.


clc;clear all; clear all


% S0 - Generate N point input data sequence x[n] of a sine wave.

% --------------------------------------------------------------
N = 128; % Length of signal
M = 8; % Number of channels
x = sin(2*pi*0.123*[0:N-1]);

% S1 - obtain the even-odd partition signals :
% --------------------------------------------
xe = x(1:2:N); % EVEN part of N-point x[n]
xo = x(2:2:N); % ODD part of N-poibt x[n]


xee = xe(1:2:N/2); % EVEN part of N/2-point xe[n]
xeo = xe(2:2:N/2); % ODD part of N/2-point xe[n]
xoe = xo(1:2:N/2); % EVEN part of N/2-point xo[n]
xoo = xo(2:2:N/2); % ODD part of N/2-point xo[n]


xeee = xee(1:2:N/4); % EVEN part of N/4-point xee[n]
xeeo = xee(2:2:N/4); % ODD part of N/4-point xee[n]
xeoe = xeo(1:2:N/4); % EVEN part of N/4-point xeo[n]
xeoo = xeo(2:2:N/4); % ODD part of N/4-point xeo[n]

xoee = xoe(1:2:N/4); % EVEN part of N/4-point xoe[n]
xoeo = xoe(2:2:N/4); % ODD part of N/4-point xoe[n]
xooe = xoo(1:2:N/4); % EVEN part of N/4-point xoo[n]
xooo = xoo(2:2:N/4); % ODD part of N/4-point xoo[n]

%S1 - Compute 8 of those N/8 point FFTs for the eee-ooo signals :
% ---------------------------------------------------------------
Xeee = fft(xeee,N/8);
Xeeo = fft(xeeo,N/8);
Xeoe = fft(xeoe,N/8);

Xeoo = fft(xeoo,N/8);
Xoee = fft(xoee,N/8);
Xoeo = fft(xoeo,N/8);
Xooe = fft(xooe,N/8);
Xooo = fft(xooo,N/8);

% S1 - obtain N/4 point DFT's from 8 , N/8 point FFTs of eee-ooo signals :
% ------------------------------------------------------------------------
W4 = exp(-1j*2*pi*(4/N)); % twiddle factor for the 3rd stage (Wn/4)
Xee = [Xeee, Xeee] + (W4.^[0:N/4-1]).*[Xeeo, Xeeo];

Xeo = [Xeoe, Xeoe] + (W4.^[0:N/4-1]).*[Xeoo, Xeoo];
Xoe = [Xoee, Xoee] + (W4.^[0:N/4-1]).*[Xoeo, Xoeo];
Xoo = [Xooe, Xooe] + (W4.^[0:N/4-1]).*[Xooo, Xooo];

% S2 - obtain N/2 point DFT's from N/4 point FFTs of ee-oo signals :
% ------------------------------------------------------------------
W2 = exp(-1j*2*pi*(2/N)); % twiddle factor for the 2rd stage (Wn/2)
Xe = [Xee, Xee] + (W2.^[0:N/2-1]).*[Xeo, Xeo];
Xo = [Xoe, Xoe] + (W2.^[0:N/2-1]).*[Xoo, Xoo];


% S3 - obtain N point final DFT from two N/2 point DFTs of e-o signals :
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wn = exp(-1j*2*pi/N);
X = [Xe, Xe] + (Wn.^[0:N-1]).*[Xo, Xo];


% SX - Display results
% --------------------
figure,stem(abs(X))
figure,stem(abs(fft(x,N)),'g');

halacha - Berachos over food mixtures


My breakfast regularly presents me with a beracha conundrum. It usually consists of a bowl of bran flakes (mezonos), often sprinkled with raisins (etz) and/or sunflower seeds (adama), and occasionally some cornflakes (shehakol, since they are processed beyond recognition as corn). And of course, all mixed in with milk (more shehakol).


I heard that the correct thing to do when you have a mixture like this is to go after the majority of the mixture, and say the beracha of that food to cover the entire dish. I also heard that if there's mezonos involved, even a minority, the whole dish automatically becomes mezonos. Does anyone have a source for either of these halachos - or different opinions?


Then, after finishing up my bowl - or even midway through it - what if I get an urge to munch a handful of raisins? Or drink a glass of milk? Assuming I made the beracha of mezonos on the bowl of cereal, which included the raisins and milk therein, must I make a new beracha on the glass of milk or plain raisins?



And what about the beracha acharona? When I say al hamichya, should I also include al haetz for the raisins? If there was a kezayis of cornflakes, or a revi'is of milk in the bowl, must I also make a borei nefashos?


Arrrggh! Maybe it would just be easier to make hamotzi and be done with it...!


(P.S. Sorry about the untranslated jargon. I know Judaism.SE is supposed to be user-friendly to beginners, but this question is just too complicated to dejargonify...)



Answer



Essentially you are asking "what are the laws of Ikar V'tafel?"


Indeed they are quite complex. I'll be following your question while I answer this. Don't treat this as a definitive guide, but this will contain lots of info that'll help your case. (and as always CYLOR)


Determining Ikar vs. Tafel



I heard that the correct thing to do when you have a mixture like this is to go after the majority of the mixture, and say the beracha of that food to cover the entire dish. I also heard that if there's mezonos involved, even a minority, the whole dish automatically becomes mezonos.




You heard correct, but that's incomplete. Here's how it generally works (by generally I mean to exclude certain other types of Ikar V'tafel):


Foods containing Wheat, Spelt, Oats, Rye, or Barley


If a food contains one of the 5 species of grain (not e.g. rice) we generally simply say that the Mezonos is Ikar and all the other foods are tafel.


However, there are cases the grain is not there for nourishment or flavor, but for some external purpose (like a binder). For example, gefilte fish is Shehakol even though it contains grain.


Other foods


The first step is to determine which of the foods is the ikar (i.e. the food specifically desired). The tafel is the food that is used to enhance the other food. This of course is subjective.


In cases where there is no clear ikar, we then look for the majority. E.g. a fruit cocktail: it would be very hard to say one fruit is the main. So we would look for the majority fruit and make the Bracha on that.


Extent of Ikar V'tafel Exemption



Then, after finishing up my bowl - or even midway through it - what if I get an urge to munch a handful of raisins? Or drink a glass of milk? Assuming I made the beracha of mezonos on the bowl of cereal, which included the raisins and milk therein, must I make a new beracha on the glass of milk or plain raisins?




In the case of cereal with milk, the cereal is generally the ikar and milk tafel. In such cases, the cereal exempts the milk, and even a small amount of milk that's leftover in the bowl. However, if one purposely added a "considerable amount" of milk to the cereal because he/she wants to drink the milk, then another bracha may be required for the milk as well.


According to this, it would appear (I don't have a source) that in your case - all the more so - you should make a separate bracha for the milk. [It would be super-hard to say that the milk in the glass is being drunk to enhance the cereal].


As far as fruits in cereal: raisins, and other small bits of fruit would seem to be tafel (provided they are serving the "enhancing" function). Bananas and larger are a bit more complicated... (CYLOR here)


Bracha Achronah in Ikar V'tafel



And what about the beracha acharona? When I say al hamichya, should I also include al haetz for the raisins?



Once again a fascinating question. Generally speaking both the Bracha Rishona and Achronah are covered by the Ikar (and exempt the Tafel) - provided it's a case of ikar v'tafel. So no.


However, the exception (which would rarely apply here) would be where you eat less than the proper shiur of the ikar. In such case, since you cannot say a bracha achronah for the ikar, you would say it on the tafel (assuming a proper shiur was eaten).




If there was a kezayis of cornflakes, or a revi'is of milk in the bowl, must I also make a borei nefashos?



Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Assuming you're asking "do I need a bracha achronah on the tafel as well?", see what I wrote before. If not, please explain in comments...



Arrrggh! Maybe it would just be easier to make hamotzi and be done with it...



Believe it or not, that would also be a case of Ikar V'tafel (although a simpler one).


Enjoy!


meaning - What is the name of the writing that appears on the screen when watching television?


When watching the news and other shows on television, I often see various written content displayed on the screen for brief periods of time, usually on the bottom, but sometimes on the right. I just learned that in English it is called closed captioning. I saw the term on Jisho, before posting. It is used frequently on news programs on a daily basis. Is there a Japanese term for this word? What is this content called?



Answer



テロップ (from English telop) is the generic word for any type of superimposed text on TV, and it's understood by everyone. You can see many テロップ's in the image below, at the top, right, left and bottom of the screen.


enter image description here



字幕 ("subtitle") is another common word, but it basically only refers to a transcription or translation of what the person on screen is saying.


grammar - What is the subject of this sentence? Is it the book (mentioned) or the author (who is not mentioned)?


The following sentence/phrase comes from the Progressive (プログレッシブ)dictionary:




この本は自然主義について論じている|This book deals with naturalism



In English people often say something like "This books addresses the issue of...." or even "This book discusses...." instead of "In this book the author deals with....". Is it possible to use verbs such as 論じる (to discuss) in the same way in Japanese?


Although the topic of this sentence is clear, I am not sure whether the subject is the book or the author (who is not mentioned). If the sentence was rewritten to make the subject clear would it be:



著者がこの本で自然主義について論じている



Or is the following possible:




この本が自然主義について論じている



Or are both possible?


(I can't tell from the entry for 論じる in my other dictionary (大辞泉) and I am not 100% sure the locational particle is required with は (it is for example optional in the sentence 彼[に]は英語ができない), or whether it would be で or に.)



Answer



There are a lot of different theories for how は works. One theory is that は can follow case particles, but when it follows が or を, that particle is deleted:



  が + は =   は
  を + は =   は   (although there is a literary をば < を + は)


  に + は =  には   (although sometimes に is dropped)
  で + は =  では
  へ + は =  へは
  と + は =  とは
 から + は = からは
 より + は = よりは

According to Martin, は replaces が thirteen times more often than it replaces を, and I think it especially often replaces が at the beginning of a sentence.


So what is は replacing in your sentence, if anything? In your sentence, both を and に seem unlikely:




  • With this verb, を marks the thing being discussed (in your example paraphrased with について).

  • With this verb, で would be used instead of に, and で wouldn't be deleted. Also, if に were used anyway, I don't think it could be dropped before は—see discussion at the end of the answer.


Instead, I'll suggest that は is replacing が. The subject is この本:



この本が  自然主義について論じている(こと) (before topicalization)
この本 自然主義について論じている。    (after topicalization, が is deleted before は)



The verb 論じる can be used in several different ways. Although the book can be the subject, as in your example, so can the author, in which case the book could be mentioned in an adjunct marked with で:




著者が この本で 自然主義を論じている(こと) (before topicalization)
この本では 著者が自然主義を論じている。    (after topicalization)



The flexibility in this case reminds me of English, where we can say:





  1. This book talks about naturalism.
    The book is the subject.





  2. In this book, the author talks about naturalism.
    The book is part of an adjunct. The author is the subject.





And so we find examples like the following (collected from the web and BCCWJ):



この本が論じているのは、「戦後」とは何だったかということ。


これは骨子においては、中島氏がこの本のなかで論じていることとほぼ同じなのではないだろうか。




At the end of your post, you give an example where に can be dropped. So the question is, why can に sometimes be dropped? Well, I linked to a paper above that discusses the topic in more detail, but I think we can explain the example at the end of your question like this:



1a. 彼が  英語ができない(こと)   (before topicalization)
1b.  英語ができない。      (after topicalization, が is deleted before は)


2a. 彼に  英語ができない(こと)   (before topicalization)
2b. 彼には 英語ができない。      (after topicalization)



Your examples are 1b and 2b. Of course, it's natural to use は there, but if we add something like こと and turn it into a subordinate clause, は disappears, leaving behind the basic case marking of the sentence (1a and 2a).


This is what Shibatani calls a non-canonical construction, and in this case either が or に is possible:




  • When you add は to が, you get は.

  • When you add は to に, you get には.


Since you can do either one, it gives the appearance that に is optional, but the real difference is が versus に. Of course, this doesn't apply to your 論じている example because に and が aren't in alternation there, so you're comparing apples and oranges.


(As an aside, adding こと does complicate things slightly, because it allows が-の conversion. But in this answer, I'm ignoring that fact.)


physical chemistry - When fugacity and z-compressability equations instead of Gibbs free energy equations?



In very high pressure environments such as mud circulating systems, conditions for polymers contain fugacity/z-compressability criteria instead of Gibbs free energy, more in the answer. So


When fugacity and z-compressability equations instead of Gibbs free energy equations?


and helper questions to the latter





  1. when are fugacity and z-compressability equations used?




  2. When are Gibbs free energy equations used?





  3. By which criteria can you justify your decision to choose between Gibbs free energy criterion and fugacity/compressability criterion?







syntax - Parsing 彼には映画監督になるという夢があります


My best guess is "His dream is to become a movie director," but I'm not sure what "になるという" means when put together like that. I know that "になる" means something like "becomes," and "という" means something like as/named/called, but I'm not sure how to parse it.



Answer



The basic sentence is this:



彼には 夢が あります

'He has a dream.' (polite)



This is a possessive argument structure1. In this argument structure, the possessor is marked by に, and the possessed is marked by が. Since in your example this clause is the main clause, the possessor is naturally expressed as a topic, so the underlying に becomes には, and we end up with the ~には~がある pattern.


Your example also has a noun-modifying clause (specifically, an appositive clause):



映画監督になるという
'a dream, to become a film director'



The noun-modifying clause is 映画監督になる (lit. 'become a film director'), and it is linked to the noun 夢 by the complementizer という. In this use, という is used grammatically to show the relationship between the noun-modifying clause and the noun 夢; it is not used literally to mean 'say', and that is why in this use it is usually not written in kanji as と言う.


The noun phrase 映画監督になるという夢 as a whole is marked as the second argument of あります with the particle が in your example:




彼には 【映画監督になるという夢】が あります
'His dream is to become a director.'



In this English translation, the possession is expressed with a possessive pronoun rather than a clausal possessive construction, and to become a director is related to dream with a subject–predicate relationship rather than an appositive relationship. It expresses the basic idea, but the grammar is very different!


If we wanted to make a slightly more direct translation, we could say something like:



'He has a dream, to become a director.'



But the other translation is probably a more natural way to express the same idea in English.





1 Japanese: Revised Edition, Shoichi Iwasaki, Chapter 6 'Argument Structures', p.107.
2 Japanese: Revised Edition, Shoichi Iwasaki, Chapter 9 'Noun phrase structures', p.202, p.210.


samuel shmuel book of - Was Yoav considered a murderer regarding Uriah the Hittite?


In Samuel I chapter 11, David commands Yo'av to place Uriah the Hittite in the middle of a battle so that, inevitably, the enemy would kill him while he is unprotected. Yo'av carries out the command.


Is Yo'av considered a murderer, halachically?


Considerations / Questions:





  • Yo'av himself did not kill Uriah, but he intentionally placed him in danger so that it was highly likely that he would have been killed. It was also clear, that Yoav's intent was to have him killed, but by someone else. In general, if someone intentionally places another in a place where death to that person is certain, does that make him liable for murder?




  • David was the king. If the king commands you to kill someone and you disobey the king, the king has a right to kill you for being a rebel against the kingdom. Yo'av did not know why David wanted Uriah killed. He was just a messaneger. So, even if Yo'av had killed Uriah himself, would that excuse him from being a murderer, because he is carrying out the king's command?





Answer



Kiddushin 43a:




האומר לשלוחו צא הרוג את הנפש הוא חייב ושולחיו פטור שמאי הזקן אומר משום חגי הנביא שולחיו חייב שנא' (שמואל ב יב, ט) אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון


One who says to his agent: "Go and kill someone" - he is liable, but his sender is not. Shamai the Elder said in the name of Chagai the prophet that his sender is liable, as it says (Shmuel 2:12:9), "[Uriah] you (David) have killed with the sword of the Children of Amon."



The Gemara proceeds to do a technical analysis of the two opinions based on the preceding daf regarding the general principle that one is not liable for his agent's sins performed on his behalf (ein shliach l'devar aveirah). It presents several such expositions; I will quote just the last one, which is relevant to the passuk quoted above:



ואיבעית אימא שאני התם דגלי רחמנא אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון


ואידך הרי לך כחרב בני עמון מה חרב בני עמון אין אתה נענש עליו אף אוריה החתי אי אתה נענש עליו


מאי טעמא מורד במלכות הוה דקאמר ליה (שמואל ב יא, יא) ואדוני יואב וכל עבדי אדוני על פני השדה חונים


If you rather, I can say [to explain Shamai's opinion] that the passuk specifies "he you have killed with the sword of the Children of Amon."



And [the Tanna Kama]? [Uriah's murder] is to you like the sword of the Children of Amon - just as you are not liable for the sword of the Children of Amon, so, too, for Uriah the Chiti you are not liable.


Why not? He rebelled against the kingdom, as it says (Shmuel 2:11:11): "My master, Yoav, and all the servants of my master [are] encamped on the face of the field." [Uriah is speaking to David in this passuk - the second reference to "my master" is David, not Yoav. As he referred to Yoav as his master before David, it was considered an affront to the kingdom and was tantamount to rebelling. Thus explains Rashi.]



In short: everyone holds Yoav was liable. For further reading on David's liability, see Avodah Zarah 5a and Shabbos 56a. For practical halacha in case you want to hire a mercenary yourself, see the full Gemara in Kiddushin, 42b through the above Gemaras, then see Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeiach 2:2-3.


conjugations - Differentiate a cause from a succession of terms in a sentence using ~くて / で


How can one differentiate a cause from a succession in a sentence using ~くて / で ?



In my book, these sentences are given as examples of successions of terms :



1- この店{みせ}は安{やす}くて,べんりです。


2- ここは新{あたら}しい町{まち}で、人気{にんき}があります。



Those are given as examples of causes :



3- このレモン ジュースはつめたくて、とてもおいしいです。


4- ストレスであまりねられません。




How do I know if I have to translate with an "and" or a "therefore"? It may be obvious for some sentences as the last one or even the first one, but what about the other two?


Am I missing something? A grammatical point?



Answer



How do you know in English? The degree to which て/で represent causality versus things being simply sequential is ambiguous in nearly the same way that and is ambiguous in the same role in English.


Consider sentences like



The door was locked and I couldn't open it.


I ate too much for lunch and skipped dinner.


I brushed my teeth and left for work.




Which range from obviously causal to obviously just sequential. (Assuming English is your native language) these may look much easier to interpret, but they're really no different from:



ドアの鍵がかかっていて開けられなかった。


昼に食べすぎて晩ごはんを抜いた。


歯を磨いて仕事に出かけた。



This is just to say that you are not really missing anything - you just need to be willing to apply the same skills you use in English every day to sentences in Japanese.


That said, cases where Japanese speakers want to be explicit about causality they will typically use から/ので in the same way English speakers will use because or so, so it's safe in many cases to translate て/で as and. It just may sometimes be a fairly causal and.


Edit: also see て used as "because"?


halacha - What is the halachic status of a Corporation?



A corporation is a separate legal entity that has been incorporated either directly through legislation or through a registration process established by law. Incorporated entities have legal rights and liabilities that are distinct from their employees and shareholders, and may conduct business as either a profit-seeking business or not-for-profit business. (Wikipedia)



For example, this article claims that




...corporate bodies, including firms that manufacture utensils or market them, are not persons and thus cannot be considered idolaters even if they are owned by non-Jews.



(Related to Is there a concept in Jewish law similar to a corporation?)




organic chemistry - What is the meaning of parentheses in a condensed molecular formula?


In the formula $\ce{(CH3)3-C-CH(CH3)-CH2-CH3}$, what do the parenthesized portions represent? What is the molecular structure, and how do I name the compound?



Answer



The parentheses just have a grouping function: $\ce{(CH3)3-C -}$ represents a carbon atom to which 3 methyl groups are attached, $\ce{-CH(CH3)}-$ is a carbon atom in the chain to which one hydrogen atom and a methyl group are attached.


Draw the molecule, find the longest chain for the base name, determine the position of the substituents and you're done.


physical chemistry - What is the unit of pH?


I'm making some graphs and I have to label the axes. I want to be extra careful and put the units in even though the meaning of $\text{pH}$ is well known. But I have a problem (though a simple one): $\text{pH}$ is a minus logarithm (base 10) of concentration of hydrogen ions (or rather their activity). What is the unit then, is it $[-\log(\text{mol}/\text{L})]$? What should I write, could you help me?



Answer




The real definition of the $\text{pH}$ is not in terms of concentration but in terms of the activity of a proton,


\begin{equation} \text{pH} = - \log a_{\ce{H+}} \ , \end{equation}


and the activity is a dimensionless quantity. You can think of the activity as a generalization of the mole fraction that takes into account deviations from the ideal behaviour in real solutions. By introducing the (dimensionless) activity coefficient $\gamma_{\ce{H+}}$, which represents the effect of the deviations from the ideal behaviour on the concentration, you can link the activity to the concentration via


\begin{equation} a_{\ce{H+}} = \frac{\gamma_{\ce{H+}} c_{\ce{H+}}}{c^0} \ , \end{equation}


where $c^0$ is the standard concentration of $1 \, \text{mol}/\text{L}$. If you ignore the non-ideal contributions you can approximately express the $\text{pH}$ in terms of the normalized proton concentration


\begin{equation} \text{pH} \approx - \log \frac{c_{\ce{H+}}}{c^0} \ . \end{equation}


In general, there can be no logarithm of a quantity bearing a unit. If however you encounter such a case it is usually due to sloppy notation: either the argument of the logarithm is implicitly understood to be normalized and thus becomes unitless or the units in the logarithm's argument originate from using the mathematical properties of logarithms to divide the logarithm of a product which is by itself unitless into a sum of logarithms: $\log(a \cdot b) = \log(a) + \log(b)$.


Friday, December 28, 2018

halacha - "Oseh ma'aseh braishis” on a rainbow. Is this a brocho levatoloh?


Someone made the brocho of “oseh ma'aseh braishis” on a rainbow. Is this a brocho levatoloh? What sources deal with this issue please? (I have posed the shaaloh to my Rav.)




parshanut torah comment - How can Nefesh mean a dead person?


In Vayikra 21:1 it's stated that one should not defile himself for any (dead) nefesh (person).


How can a word like nefesh which seems to be the force that animated the body and gave it it's life, also mean the absence of that same life; death?




organic chemistry - Rates of hydrolysis in bicyclic and monocyclic compounds




Which of the following compounds, 1-bromo-1-methylcyclohexane 1 or 1-bromobicyclo[2.2.2]octane 2, hydrolyzes faster (under comparable conditions)? It may be acid catalyzed or base catalyzed hydrolysis, but the conditions must remain the same for each pair.


enter image description here



In my view because of the steric hindrance in first compound, hydrolysis should be easier for second, but I am not sure about it.


See part one of my question here.



Answer



Both hydrolysis reactions will almost certainly occur by $\mathrm{S_N1}$, forming carbocation intermediates. I'm not sure if sterics will play the biggest role here. One thing you should consider is the actual conformations of these molecules. The bicyclic is slightly more rigid and may not adjust to the trigonal planar geometry of a carbocation as easily as the cyclohexane, and this will likely be the deciding factor. Here are the conformations, as I hope you know.


enter image description here


grammar - What does との mean in this sentence?


It is very hard to parse the following sentence as I don't know about との grammar. What does との mean and how to parse the following sentence?



自治会から、留学生数人との交流会があるとの連絡を受け、行ってみた。




Answer



との combines the functions of the particles と and の. In your example, the first と is different from the second と. But in both cases, の is used to modify the following noun.


Here, と means "with".


留学生数人と = with some exchange students



留学生数人との交流会 = a meeting/gathering with some exchange students


The second と is the quoting particle. It indicates the contents of the 連絡.


留学生数人との交流会があるとの連絡 = a message saying that "留学生数人との交流会がある"


So putting everything together, we have:


自治会から、留学生数人との交流会があるとの連絡を受け = I received a message from the neighborhood council saying that there would be a meeting/gathering with some exchange students


行ってみた = so I went to check it out.


power spectral density - Oversampling while maintaining noise PSD


I'm designing a digital PID for control and stabilization of laser amplitude. The noise PSD of the laser intensity is around -140dB/Hz, and I want to servo that between DC and 100kHz. I think I've found a solution on the input side, but would like to make sure my understanding of noise spectral density vs SNR is correct.


I'm thinking about using an ADC at 5MSPS with a SNR of 100dB. My understanding is that this means that the power spectral density for a full-scale signal will have a noise floor of -163 dBFS/Hz, calculated form the SNR and the bandwidth. Since I only want to servo to 100kHz, I can use a digital FIR filter to maintain that noise floor so that I have a healthy amount of SNR between the noise that I want to servo and the intrinsic noise of the ADC.


What I'm a bit confused about is what the FIR filter does to the noise spectrum. I'm pretty sure that the filter will simply attenuate everything past the passband, and maintain the 167 dBFS/Hz - the SNR increases, but the effective bandwidth decreases. Is this actually correct?





thermodynamics - Formula of entropy change


In my 12th standard book, the formula for entropy change is given as $\Delta S = \frac{q_\text{reversible}}{T}$. What is the importance of absorbing heat reversibly and not irreversibly? What does absorbing heat reversibly mean? Does it mean that the process should be reversible, and if it does, then how would we define change in entropy of a spontaneous process i.e an irreversible process? Would its formula also include $q_\text{reversible}$?



Answer






  1. A process is thermodynamically reversible if it is essentially at equilibrium. Specifically, the system and its surroundings stay infinitesimally close to equilibrium with each other throughout a reversible process. Small changes in intensive variables of the system are perfectly balanced by changes in those variables in the surroundings. For example, $T_{\text{system}} = T_{\text{surroundings}}$ if heat can be exchanged reversibly; any temperature difference will result in an irreversible exchange of heat.




  2. What's special about reversible heat transfer? When a tiny amount of heat $dq_{\text{rev}}$ is released by the system during a reversible process, the surroundings will absorb exactly that amount of heat, no matter what path the process takes.


    If you have an irreversible process, the amount of heat (and work) depends on how the system and surroundings change during the process.




  3. What's the difference between reversible and irreversible heat? The heat transferred by an irreversible process $dq_{\text{irrev}}$ is less than $dq_{\text{rev}}$, where $dq_{\text{rev}}$ is the heat that would have been transferred if the process had been performed reversibly. The difference between the two is the amount of work you'd have to do on the system to reverse the effects of the irreversible process.


    How do we know that? Energy $U$ is a state function, so it'll be the same whichever way we do the process: $$dU = dq_{\text{irrev}} + dw_{\text{irrev}} = dq_{\text{rev}} + dw_{\text{rev}}$$ so the difference between the two heats is $$dq_{\text{rev}} - dq_{\text{irrev}} = dw_{\text{irrev}} - dw_{\text{rev}}$$


    The differences on either side are positive, so $$dq_{rev} > dq_{irrev}$$ This means that an irreversible process will always absorb less heat from the surroundings and perform less work on the surroundings than it would have if the process had been done reversibly.





  4. Why $dS = dq_{\text{rev}}/T$? With a reversible process, $$\left(\frac{dq_{\text{rev}}}{T}\right)_{\text{system}} = -\left(\frac{dq_{\text{rev}}}{T}\right)_{\text{surroundings}}$$ so if we define $dS \equiv dq_{\text{rev}}/T$, then we have $dS_{\text{universe}} = dS_{\text{system}} + dS_{\text{surroundings}} = 0$.


    Consider what would happen in an irreversible process that took the system from state A to state B. The inequality $dq_{\text{rev}} > dq_{\text{irrev}}$ together with the definition of entropy in terms of reversible heats gives $$\Delta S = S_B - S_A = \int_A^B\frac{dq_{\text{rev}}}{T} > \int_A^B\frac{dq_{\text{irrev}}}{T}$$ for any such process. This also implies that for any cyclic process (e. g. A to B back to A), we have $$\oint\frac{dq_{\text{irrev}}}{T} \lt 0, \ \text{and}\ \Delta S = \oint\frac{dq_{\text{rev}}}{T} = 0$$ This shows that $q_{\text{rev}}/T$ is a state function (it's zero for any cyclic process) but $q_{\text{irrev}}/T$ is not a state function. If entropy is to be a state function, then, you can't define it as simply $q/T$; you've got to use $\Delta S = q_{\text{rev}}/T$, or for the differential form $dS = dq_{\text{rev}}/T$.




  5. How could we relate the entropy change for an irreversible process to $dq_{\text{irrev}}$? From the difference between $q_{rev}$ and $dq_{irrev}$ above and the definition of entropy, we have $$dS = \frac{dq_{\text{rev}}}{T} = \frac{dq_{\text{irrev}}}{T} + \frac{dw_{\text{irrev}}-dw_{\text{rev}}}{T}$$




TL;DR: There IS no TL;DR; you're asking some important questions here, and the answers need to be made carefully.



word choice - How do you say "If only things were different"?


Context: Bob is angry that event X happened today. A series of unfortunate events throughout his life led up to this crappy day, and thus he thinks to himself, "if only things were different". How do I translate this line when 'things' refer to 'basically everything bad that has ever happened' and is so vague and all-encompassing that even Bob doesn't know what specific things he's referring to?



thingsさえこんなんじゃなかったら




Answer



"If only~~." is often translated as 「~でさえあればなあ。」「~でありさえすればなあ。」「~さえすればなあ。」 or 「~ばいいのに(なあ)。」「~たらなあ。」, etc.


For example...





  • 彼が間に合って来さえすればなあ。If only he comes in time. (Genius E-J Dictionary)

  • 彼女がもう少し早く来てさえいればなあ。If only she had come earlier. (Genius E-J / J-E Dictionary)

  • タバコがやめられさえすればなあ。If only I could stop smoking! (Lexis E-J Dictionary)



I think your sentence can translate to something like...


"If only things were different."
lit. 「事態/状況が違ってさえいればなあ。」

⇒ or more naturally...
「こんなこと* に(さえ)ならなければなあ。」 or 「こんなこと* に(さえ)ならなかったらなあ。」


*The 「こと」 is used in the sense of 「[事態]{じたい}」("things" or "situation"), as in 「困ったことになった」「まずいことになった」「大変なことになった」(lit. "Became bad/difficult situation." → "Things became bad / went wrong." "We're in trouble.")


how to - Simple Sukkah plans using dimensional lumber from Home Depot?


I'm planning to build a sukkah using dimensional lumber from Home Depot for the frame and some tarp for the sides. It should be big enough to fit 2 adults and 2 small kids, but generally as small as possible.


I would like to know if there are any ready-made plans available online, so I don't need to reinvent it. Of course I would like it sturdy and kosher. I have access to all the basic woodworking tools.



Answer



When using panels, usually people use 4 foot by 8 foot panels. (8 feet tall is perfect for height). Thus 8 X 8 or 8 X 12 is common in size.


If you do it your way, with tarps, you are not limited to 4X8 panels. However most things you might buy as beams (wood at least) come in 8 feet long. So 8 feet tall makes sense.


Also, a simple cube 8 X 8 X 8, is easiest based on the existing lengths, minimizing wood cutting.


A table is usually 36" (3 feet) wide, so a 4 foot wide succah is probably too narrow.


I would rather consider the space you have available, and build to that. Remember you only need three walls, not 4 (and technically, one of those 3 can be very short/small).


Simplest approach is build a basic frame, I like bolts in 2X4s since it is easy to reuse next year. What I would recommend at each of corner to put in two bolts, otherwise, the square becomes a rhombus very quickly. Other approach is to use a diagonal brace in the each corner.



acid base - Why is a buffer solution best when pH = pKa i.e. when A-/HA=1



Buffers work best when $\mathrm{pH}$=$\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a}$


From the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation,


$\mathrm{pH}= \mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} + \log_{10}\left(\frac{[\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{HA}]}\right)$


If $\mathrm{pH}$=$\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{a} \implies\log_{10} \ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}} = 0 \implies \frac{[\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{HA}]}= 1$


But why does having $\frac{[\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{HA}]}= 1$ make it a good buffer solution?


When I look at a $\log_{10}$ graph, it looks like the further to the right $x$ i.e. $\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}$ is, the less effect any change in $\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}$ has on $\log_{10}\frac{[\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{HA}]}$ (and hence effect on $\mathrm{pH}$ as well).


So wouldn't this indicate that a good buffer would have a large $\log_{10} \ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}$ (as e.g. going from $\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}} = 10$ to $\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}= 11$ will have a smaller change (0.04 in this example) in $\log_{10}\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}$ than going from $v= 1/1$ to $\ce{\frac{[A-]}{[HA]}}= 2/1$) (0.3 in this example). Where both of these changes show addition of 1 M of base.





Note: 2 similar questions where asked before: Why is buffer capacity at a maximum when the ratio of its components is 1? and Why does a buffer work best at the pH closest to its pKa?



The questions didn't show what exactly they didn't understand which I am attempting to do here. Also the answers were not useful as one said said the buffer is best when X (which I know), but not didn't explain why this is the case. The other questions answer provided a link which I read but was beyond me.



Answer



Preliminaries


There are many ways in which you can go about defining a "Buffer Capacity". A good intuitive way to start would be to say, it is tha maximum amount of acid (or base) the solution can tolerate before it starts showing a significant change in pH. While this is not bad, it obviously begs the question what is deemed "significant"?


However, let us start at the very beginning by examining (in very basic terms) how a buffer works.


Say, you have some amount of $\ce{A^-}$ in the solution and some amount of $\ce{HA}$. You add a strong acid to the solution, and this leads to an influx of $\ce{H^+}$ ions; the buffer responds by forming more $\ce{HA}$ through the combination of $\ce{A^-}$ and $\ce{H^+}$. Similarly, you add a strong base to the solution, and you have a lot of $\ce{OH^-}$ floating around, and the soultion responds appropriately, by favouring the disassociation of $\ce{HA}$, the $\ce{H^+}$ so released combines with the $\ce{OH^-}$ and neutralises it.


The equilibrium we are interested in is $$\ce{HA <=> A^- + H^+}$$


an increase in acidity causes a shift to the left, and an increase in basicity causes a shift to the right.


So, in this way a buffer acts a proton sink, absorbing/releasing protons as appropriate to maintain the pH of the solution.


The buffer is said to be broken when we add to much acid/base, and this consumes all of the $\ce{A-}$ / $\ce{HA}$ respectively.



A solution with more weak base, $\ce{A-}$, has a higher buffer capacity for addition of strong acid. A solution with more weak acid, $\ce{HA}$, has a higher buffer capacity for addition of strong base.So although the pH of a buffer is determined by only the ratio conjugate base and acid, the ability of the buffer to absorb strong acid or base is determined by the individual concentrations of the conjugate base and acid.


So it might seem intuitive to have the optimum at equal concentrations of conjugate base and acid.




Intuitive definitions


$$\ce{HA + OH^- <=> A^- + H2O }$$ $$\ce{A^- + H3O^+ <=> HA + H2O}$$ $$pH + pOH = 14$$


The following discussion is largely inspired by this paper (free to read)


Namely, if you you have $$\mathrm{pH} = \mathrm{pK_a} + \log \left( \frac{A^-}{HA}\right)$$


Since, $\mathrm{pK_a}$ is a fixed number, an changes that can take place to the pH value are caused by the $\log \left( \frac{A^-}{HA}\right)$ term.


so, we can say $$ \mathrm{pH} = \mathrm{pK_a} + \delta \\ \text{where}\ \delta = \log \left( \frac{A^-}{HA}\right)$$


make $\delta = 0$ and you are done. You can call that your ideal case, an ideal buffer.



Now, you can consider a buffer's resistance to base and acid separately, and you can define an acid and base buffer capacity ($\beta_a$ and $\beta_b$), for very simple cases (read caveats).


The stoichiometric ratio of of conjugate base and acid is 1:1. $\Delta$ denotes an arbitrary change in $\delta$ after $\alpha$ mol of $\ce{HA}$ has reacted (after addition of a strong base)


$$\delta + \Delta = \log \left( \frac{[A^-] + \alpha}{[HA] - \alpha}\right)$$


One then notes that bases attempt to increase the pH of a solution so $\Delta = 1$, and also let us denote $\beta_b$ as the buffer base capacity. Also, note that $\alpha = \beta_b$. We are interested in the maximum amount of base a 1:1 buffer solution can tolerate before the pH increases by one unit. We are assuming a 1:1 stoichiometry between the the weak acid in our buffer and the strong base that is being added to it.


$$10^{\delta + 1 } = \left( \frac{[A^-] + \beta_b}{[HA] - \beta_b}\right) $$


We solve for beta and substitute for $\delta$ to ultimately get,


$$ \beta_b = \frac{9[\ce{HA}][\ce{A^-}]}{10[\ce{HA}] + [\ce{A^-}]}$$


Now, let us consider that we are adding a strong monoprotic acid. The approach is similar to the one described above. A few key differences is one lets $\Delta = -1$ and let $\alpha = -\beta_a$


I am omitting the algebra involved. You can attempt as an exercise it if you'd like, and ask for clarifications in the comments if you run into trouble. We obtain a similar relation


$$ \beta_a = \frac{9[\ce{HA}][\ce{A^-}]}{10[\ce{HA}] + [\ce{A^-}]}$$



$\beta_a = \beta_b$ if and only if $\delta = 0$ Otherwise, the buffer either displays stronger resistance towards acids or bases.




Caveats


This is a good exercise to develop a good basic understanding, however doesn't have a lot of practical uses. Here, only a simple buffer was considered, i.e one without multiple weak bases and acids. Additionally, polyprotic acids haven't been accounted for.




Formal defintion of buffer capacity


The formal definition of buffer is a little bit intimidating, but I will throw it in here anyway. It obviously makes little sense to have two different kinds of capacities, one for acids and one for bases in everyday life. So we need something more general, which still incorporates the intuition we have developed so far (although it might not seem obvious)


Let $n$ be number of equivalents of added strong base (per 1 L of the solution). Note that addition of $dn$ moles of acid will change pH by exactly the same value but in opposite direction. I will try to derive a formula connecting buffer capacity with pH, pKa and buffer concentration- all numbers we can obtain easily.


For simplicity, I assume that the strong base is monoprotic, and we have volume of 1 (which will allows me to use concentration and number of moles interchangeably)


$$\beta = \frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}pH} \tag{1}$$



Charge balance of the solution is given by the equation $$[\ce{A^-}]+[\ce{OH^-}] = [\ce{B^+}] + [\ce{H^+}] \tag{2}$$


$[\ce{B+}]$ is nothing but concentration of the strong base present, or the number of moles present since we assume a volume of 1 L(:D ), so it is simply $n$ in the solution.


$$C_{b} = [\ce{HA}]+[\ce{A-}] \tag{3}$$


and $$[\ce{HA}] = \frac{[\ce{A-}][\ce{H+}]}{K_a} \tag{4}$$


from 3 and 4,


$$ [\ce{A-}] = \frac{C_bK_a}{K_a+ [\ce{H+}]} \tag{5} $$


Using the definition of $K_w$, equation 2 and 5


$$n = \frac{K_w}{[\ce{H+}]} - [\ce{H+}]+ \frac{C_bK_a}{K_a+ [\ce{H+}]} \tag{6}$$


$$\beta = \frac{\mathrm{d}n}{\mathrm{d}pH} = \frac{\mathrm{d}n \mathrm{d}[\ce{H+}]}{\mathrm{d}[\ce{H+}]\mathrm{dpH}} \tag{7}$$


Now, you can evaluate the derivative given above, and after some alebraic manipulations you get $$\beta = (2.303) \left( \frac{K_w}{[\ce{H+}]} + [\ce{H+}]+ \frac{C_bK_a}{(K_a+ [\ce{H+}])^2} \right )$$



Generalising this for solutions containing several buffers


$$\beta = (2.303) \left( \frac{K_w}{[\ce{H+}]} + [\ce{H+}]+ \sum_{}^{} \frac{C_bK_a}{(K_a+ [\ce{H+}])^2} \right )$$


I'd like to point out that the first two terms in the buffer capacity formula are not dependent on the buffer presence in the solution. Why? They just tell us solutions of high (or low) pH are resistant to pH changes. Simple.


enter image description here


Above plot shows how the buffer capacity changes for the 0.1M solution of acetic buffer. As expected buffer exhibits the highest resistance to acid and base addition for the equimolar solution (when pH=pKa). From the plot it is also obvious that buffer capacity has reasonably high values only for pH close to pKa value. The further from the optimal value, the lower buffer capacity of the solution. Solution containing only conjugate base (pH 8-10) has buffer capacity of zero, for the higher pH presence of the strong base starts to play an important role. In the case of pure acetic acid solution (pH below 3) pH is already low enough to be resistant to changes due to the high concentration of $\ce{H+}$.


Katakana loanwords: is there data about their creation/evolution and acceptance as "new Japanese words"?



Disclaimer:


This is a topic that I hold particularly dear. This question is related to data so that it is acceptable for this community. However, as a languages enthusiast, what deeply concerns me is that this explosion in katakana loanwords is (and will be more and more) "re-shaping" a beautiful language like Japanese in a sort of hybrid language (this is of course a very pessimistic view).


Intro: (on purpose a little provocative)


I have just read an answer from Naruto to this question. In particular these last two sentences made me decide to finally start scraping the surface of this topic which I have been concerned with for a long time.



Today, Japanese people no longer frequently coin totally new kanji compounds nor borrow new kanji words from Chinese. Instead, people introduce new katakana loanwords almost every day.



I totally agree, and want to build up on this.


Anyway, I will not ask whether you think or not that "katakana is just ugly, so isn't the less the better"? (Want to have a headache? Look here for example). Would be an opinion.


Although I am extremely curious to know about it, I will not ask "why do you think that Japanese people like so much to just adopt a katakana loanword rather than make up a "traditional" Japanese word for something new? (For example Chinese would (almost) never do that I believe). You would be surprised at the reaction many Japanese people when I ask: so, why has it been called エスかレター and not, say, 自動階段? (I came up with this example myself but people seem to agree that could make perfect sense). Would be probably be an opinion again.



Actual question:


I have the feeling that especially in the last decades the use of katakana loanwords has increased dramatically (and this seemed to agree with the quote above).


When exactly did it start? Do you know of any data/references where one could track the evolution of creation and use of such loanwords? I would be very interested to know what is the growth rate. Also, they seem not only related to technology or "new inventions" but my feeling is that more and more nouns, adjectives, etc are becoming popular (リーズナブル、インストラクター、 ディスカッション, and I could go on forever). So at what pace and why katakana loanwords are growing so much?


Related to this I would also like to clear the following. Again, my feeling and personal experience tells me that Japanese is probably one of the languages with the highest rate of loanwords in the world. Is this true? Is there data to back this theory up?


Bonus question (might be slightly an opinion):


Do you think that using katakana instead of the English alphabet also for words that are normally not considered Japanese words would in the long run (tens of years) contribute to the creation of a new loanword that will be adopted and integrated as a "Japanese word"?


Example: a building is called ビュータワー。 No Japanese today (I hope!) would use ビュー for "view" (they would use 景色,眺め、眺望, or whatever appropriate).


However, wouldn't using English alphabet make a much clearer distinction between what is a Japanese word and what is not? Doesn't using constantly a Japanese alphabet also for English words risk to lead, in the future, to people saying something like "綺麗なビューですね"?


Final Note:


Although it might be difficult to feel this difference from "original" and "loan" words from a native speaker point of view (they probably both would sound natural at the same level), IMHO Japanese is a beautiful language and this extreme growth in loanwords is doing some serious harm. Of course one could argue that every language evolves and will eventually change. But is it wrong to want to protect it's roots structure? I actually met Japanese people that seems to feel the same way I do and would be interesting to continue this discussion.





halacha - In a cemetery, when there is a headstone, what is the law or custom of walking OVER the "body" of someone buried there?



Our family recently unveiled the headstone on my mother's grave. Before the unveiling service, my elder brother told me NOT to walk over the grave of my mother. Through lack of space it was impossible to assemble the relatives together so as NOT to stand on the grass over her grave. Is there a law or custom not to walk on the graves of the dead? If so, why are gravestones not placed horizontally on top of the earth, rather than vertically at the head of the grave? Is the custom different in Israel?




halacha - Entering / Davening in a Karaite synagogue



Is one permitted to enter and/or daven in a Karaite synagogue nowadays (according to Rabbinite law)?




grammar - Use of に and を with 触れる


The verb 触れる challenges my concept of what を does; to mark a direct object.


Consider these uses of 触れる:



(人)の頬に指を触れる (Touch a finger to someone's cheek)



(人)の頬に手を触れる (Touch someone's cheek with your hand)



Now, if transitivity of the verb were not taken into account, I would guess that it's the finger or hand that is being touched since they are marked by the direct object marker . But because I know that 触れる is intransitive, I understand that the object is marked by instead.


(Question) What is the role of when used in the above type of pattern? Should the particle be instead since / are the "means" by which the action was carried out?



Answer



My daijirin lists both an intransitive and transitive form of the verb 触れる.


I suspect this is just a mismatch between the Japanese verb and it's closest English equivalent. The verb is something more like 'move-to-be-in-contact-with', so the direct object is the part of the body you're moving.


Thursday, December 27, 2018

inorganic chemistry - Making a saturated solution of Na₂CO₃



I need to make a saturated solution of $\ce{Na2CO3}$ and according to the available data I should add $22\ \text{g}$ in $100\ \text{ml}$ of water at $25\ ^\circ\text{C}$.


I wanted to make $300\ \text{ml}$ solution, which would require $66\ \text{g}$. But, even after adding $110\ \text{g}$ of the salt, no turbidity appears which might indicate saturation. So I believe that the solution is still not saturated.


However, when I kept the flask overnight, almost the entire salt precipitated out in large crystalline chunks. I am a bit confused as to what the problem might be. Has anyone faced this kind of trouble?




physical chemistry - Is the dissolution of sodium acetate trihydate endothermic?



Sodium acetate trihydrate dissolves in water to its constituent ions:


$$\ce{NaOAc.3H2O (s) ->[H2O] Na+ (aq) + OAc- (aq) + 3H2O (l)}$$


The crystallisation of sodium acetate from a supersaturated solution is well-known to be exothermic. Since dissolution is the reverse of crystallisation, should the enthalpy of dissolution be positive (i.e. an endothermic process)?



Answer



The process of dissolving sodium acetate trihydrate $(\ce{NaC2H3O2.3H2O})$ in water is endothermic. The molar enthalpy of solution at $T=25\ \mathrm{^\circ C}$ is $\Delta_\text{sol}H^\circ=19.66\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol^{-1}}$.*


Accordingly, since crystallization is the reverse process of dissolution, the crystallization of sodium acetate trihydrate from aqueous solutions is exothermic. For practical purposes, the enthalpy of solution with a reverse sign is taken as enthalpy of crystallization.


The enthalpy of solution mainly depends on two energy contributions: lattice energy and hydration energy. Lattice energy is the energy released when the crystal lattice of an ionic compounds is formed. Conversely, energy equal to the lattice energy has to be supplied to break up the crystal lattice; i.e. this process is endothermic. Hydration energy is released when water molecules hydrate the ions; i.e. when water molecules surround the ions and new attractions form between water molecules and ions. This process is exothermic.


Therefore, whether the process of dissolving a salt in water is exothermic or endothermic depends on the relative sizes of the lattice energy and the hydration energy. If the lattice energy is greater than the hydration energy, the process of dissolving the salt in water is endothermic. Conversely, if the lattice energy is smaller than the hydration energy, the process of dissolving the salt in water is exothermic.


For anhydrous sodium acetate $(\ce{NaC2H3O2})$, the lattice energy is actually smaller than the hydration energy. The molar enthalpy of solution is negative; at $T=25\ \mathrm{^\circ C}$ it is $\Delta_\text{sol}H^\circ=-17.32\ \mathrm{kJ\ mol^{-1}}$.* Thus, the process of dissolving anhydrous sodium acetate in water is exothermic.


However, hydration of ions can also occur in crystalline solids. Sodium acetate trihydrate $(\ce{NaC2H3O2.3H2O})$ contains three water molecules for each $\ce{NaC2H3O2}$ unit in the crystal. The corresponding amount of hydration energy is already released when crystalline anhydrous sodium acetate absorbs water and is converted to crystalline sodium acetate trihydrate. Therefore, the additional amount of hydration energy that is released when sodium acetate trihydrate is dissolved in water and completely hydrated is smaller than the total hydration energy that is released when anhydrous sodium acetate is dissolved in water. Hence, the resulting value for the molar enthalpy of solution is larger for sodium acetate trihydrate than for anhydrous sodium acetate.



* “Enthalpy of Solution of Electrolytes”, in CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 90th Edition (CD-ROM Version 2010), David R. Lide, ed., CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.


digital communications - Understanding the Matched Filter

I have a question about matched filtering. Does the matched filter maximise the SNR at the moment of decision only? As far as I understand, ...