Sunday, March 31, 2019

halacha - Chazals intention behind bedikat hametz



Nowdays, it seems to be standard for jewish family's to begin cleaning their houses days before Pesach. By the time bedikat hametz arrives, the houses are usually hametz free.


From reading Talmud Pesachim and Rambam, it seems that Chazal envisioned all the cleaning to be done the night of bedika, and weren't so meticulously with all the tiny specs of hametz as we are nowdays.


1) Is what I'm saying true? 2) if not, why didn't Hazal tell us to make the bracha for bedikat hametz when we started cleaning days/weeks earlier? Why wait for the houses to be hametz free the night of eruv Pesach?




halacha theory - Obligation of a Beis Din to judge and decide on Issurim?


THe question about the baby switch made me think of this question:


In the realm of Issurim (Arayos, Mamzerim, conversion, Kohen, etc) when new evidence arises, is a Beis Din and what Beis Din obligated to judge and decide on it?


For example in the aforementioned case, a DNA report comes from a lab 20 year after the birth showing with a 99% probability that the babies were switched. The two persons enjoy their current Chazokos (maybe already married with kids). What's next - what B"D is obligated/authorized to see the case?


Can a Beis Din deny seeing new evidence? And is it different for different Issurim topics?




fft - The frequency response function (FRF) fails to detect the antiresonance of a system


I am trying to identify a vibrational systems by computing the frequency response function (FRF) of the system when a chirp signal is applied to its input. After comparing the FRF computed and the bode plot of the transfer function I found that the resonance has been well detected but the anti-resonance has not.


Differences between the Bode plot and the FRF



The system has the following form:


$$\textrm{sys} = \frac{s^2+\omega_{n_{z_1}}^2}{s^2+\omega_{n_{p_1}}^2}, \quad \textrm{where } \omega_{n_z} = 10\textrm{ Hz} \textrm{ and } \omega_{n_p} = 100\textrm{ Hz}.\\$$


I have a hypothesis:


The steady state response of a linear system to a sinusoidal signal is another sinusoidal signal with the same frequency with an amplitude and a phase that depend on the system. When I applied a chirp signal, the system never reached the steady state. So while the output of the system to $\sin(\omega_{n_{z_1}}\cdot 2\pi)$ should be zero, I am still obtaining some sinusoidal signal of frequency $100\textrm{ Hz}$ as a consequence of stimulating (weakly) that part of the spectrum with the transient response.


In my opinion the correct computation should be measuring only the components of the outputs that correspond to the frequency of the input at certain particular moment.



  • Do you know how to correct this problem?

  • Is it possible to apply a moving filter or window to correct this problem?


Here is my code:



% Identification of the Frequency Response of a Transfer Function with
% Resonance and Antiresonance peaks
%% Cleaning the house
clc;
clear;
close all;
%% Definition of the System
wn_z1 = 10*2*pi; % Anti-Resonance Natural frequency 10 Hz
wn_p1 = 80*2*pi; % Resonance Natural frequency 80 Hz
chi_z = 0; % Damping factor of the zeros

chi_p = 0; % Damping factor of the poles
s = tf('s');
sys_1 = (s^2+2*chi_z*wn_z1*s+ wn_z1^2)/(s^2+2*chi_p*wn_p1*s+wn_p1^2);
zpk(sys_1)
%% Definition of the Chirp Input
h = 0.001;
time = 0:0.001:60;
freq_ini = 0.1*2*pi; % Initial frequency considered (0.1 Hz)
freq_final = 240*2*pi; % Final frequency considered (240 Hz)
chirp_input = 1.5*chirp(time,freq_ini,time(end),freq_final,'logarithmic');


frequency_evolution = logspace(log10(freq_ini),log10(freq_final),length(time));
figure(1);
subplot(2,1,1);plot(time,chirp_input); xlabel('time (s)'); ylabel('Chirp amplitude')
subplot(2,1,2);plot(time,frequency_evolution/(2*pi)); xlabel('time (s)'); ylabel('Frequency (Hz)');
%% Execution of the simulation
[sys_output,~] = lsim(sys_1,chirp_input,time);
%% Computation of the FRF
fft_input = fft(chirp_input,2^12); %% Considering zero padding
fft_output = fft(sys_output ,2^12); %% Considering zero padding

fft_input = fft_input(1:length(fft_input)/2);
fft_output = fft_output(1:length(fft_output)/2);
fft_output = fft_output(:);
fft_input = fft_input(:);
FRF = abs(fft_output)./abs(fft_input);
frequency_vector = linspace(0,1/(2*h),length(FRF));

%% Comparing the Bode Plot (Matlab) with the FRF (own implementation)
opts = bodeoptions('cstprefs');
opts.FreqUnits = 'Hz';

close all;
bodemag(sys_1,opts,'r'); hold on;
semilogx(frequency_vector, 20*log10(FRF ),'b')
xlim([0.1,frequency_vector(end)])
legend('Matlab Bode','FRF Identification')

Answer



I agree with A_A that the chirp is too fast.


I adjusted a few things in the code



  • increase time to $600$ (seconds)


  • start chirp at $0.5\textrm{ Hz}$

  • end chirp at $2\textrm{ Hz}$

  • removed zero padding (not required here)


And the result is...


Identified response with slow chirp


The full code is


% Identification of the Frequency Response of a Transfer Function with
% Resonance and Antiresonance peaks
%% Cleaning the house

clc;
clear;
close all;
%% Definition of the System
wn_z1 = 10*2*pi; % Anti-Resonance Natural frequency 10 Hz
wn_p1 = 80*2*pi; % Resonance Natural frequency 80 Hz
chi_z = 0; % Damping factor of the zeros
chi_p = 0; % Damping factor of the poles
s = tf('s');
sys_1 = (s^2+2*chi_z*wn_z1*s+ wn_z1^2)/(s^2+2*chi_p*wn_p1*s+wn_p1^2);

zpk(sys_1)
%% Definition of the Chirp Input
h = 0.001;
time = 0:0.001:600;
freq_ini = 0.5*2*pi; % Initial frequency considered (0.1 Hz)
freq_final = 2*2*pi; % Final frequency considered (240 Hz)
chirp_input = 1.5*chirp(time,freq_ini,time(end),freq_final,'logarithmic');

frequency_evolution = logspace(log10(freq_ini),log10(freq_final),length(time));
figure(1);

subplot(2,1,1);plot(time,chirp_input); xlabel('time (s)'); ylabel('Chirp amplitude')
subplot(2,1,2);plot(time,frequency_evolution/(2*pi)); xlabel('time (s)'); ylabel('Frequency (Hz)');
%% Execution of the simulation
[sys_output,~] = lsim(sys_1,chirp_input,time);
%% Computation of the FRF
fft_input = fft(chirp_input); %% Considering zero padding
fft_output = fft(sys_output ); %% Considering zero padding
fft_input = fft_input(1:length(fft_input)/2);
fft_output = fft_output(1:length(fft_output)/2);
fft_output = fft_output(:);

fft_input = fft_input(:);
FRF = abs(fft_output)./abs(fft_input);
frequency_vector = linspace(0,1/(2*h),length(FRF));

%% Comparing the Bode Plot (Matlab) with the FRF (own implementation)
opts = bodeoptions('cstprefs');
opts.FreqUnits = 'Hz';
close all;
bodemag(sys_1,opts,'r'); hold on;
semilogx(frequency_vector, 20*log10(FRF ),'b')

xlim([0.1,frequency_vector(end)])
legend('Matlab Bode','FRF Identification')

humor - What puns are there in Tanach?


Related to Are there any jokes in tanach?, what puns exist in Tanach?



Answer



The Ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Bereishis 2:25, gives the following examples:



Bereishis 2:25-3:1:



כה וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ.


א וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, אַף כִּי-אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן.



One means "naked," and one means "cunning."


Shoftim 15:16:



טז וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן--בִּלְחִי הַחֲמוֹר, חֲמוֹר חֲמֹרָתָיִם; בִּלְחִי הַחֲמוֹר, הִכֵּיתִי אֶלֶף אִישׁ.




One means "donkey," and one means "many heaps."


10:4



ד וַיְהִי-לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּנִים, רֹכְבִים עַל-שְׁלֹשִׁים עֲיָרִים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים עֲיָרִים, לָהֶם; לָהֶם יִקְרְאוּ חַוֹּת יָאִיר, עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, אֲשֶׁר, בְּאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד.



One means "donkeys" and one means "cities."


He also asserts in his commentary to Shemos 22:5 that this is another example of a pun:



ד כִּי יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ שָׂדֶה אוֹ־כֶרֶם וְשִׁלַּח אֶת־בְּעִירֹה וּבִעֵר בִּשְׂדֵה אַחֵר מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃
ה כִּֽי־תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָֽצְאָה קֹצִים וְנֶֽאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ אוֹ הַקָּמָה אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת־הַבְּעֵרָֽה׃




In the first verse, they all are related to the word "animal," while in the second it refers to fire.


tanach - posuk for the name "Pearl" to say in shemone esre



I am searching for a possuk beginning with a pei and ending with a lamed, to say in Shemona Esre, for name Pearl. I have found one in tehillim perek 7, but would love a different one if at all possible.




marriage - Is the presence of a rabbi required for an orthodox wedding?


Is it possible for two Orthodox Jews to be married by anyone other than a rabbi?





Saturday, March 30, 2019

eretz yisrael - Visiting Israel: A Mitzvah?


Is visiting Israel a Mitzvah? (visiting as opposed to living)


Just some points I would hope an answer to cover:



  • Was it a mitzvah back then?

  • Is it still a mitzvah nowadays?

  • Does the mitzvah apply throughout the year, or only during שלש רגלים?

  • Is the mitzvah specifically for visiting Yerushalayim, or does anywhere in Israel suffice?




Answer



There is no specific Mitzva to visit Eretz Yisroel, however (Kesubos 111a) walking 4 (Amos) cubits in Eretz Yisroel is a Mitzva. In addition there are many Mitzvos that can be done exclusively in eretz Yisroel.


torah study - How does the content of the JPS English translation of Miqra'ot Gedolot differ from that of the Hebrew version?


Because I am not yet fluent in Hebrew I am excited to learn that JPS is publishing an English translation of Miqra'ot Gedolot. (So far they've done Sh'mot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar.) As noted in one of the Amazon reviews, a complete translation of MG would run to a much higher page count than what they've produced, so my question is how the content of this edition compares to that of the original. One person told me that this edition removes repetition -- when one commentary quotes another they collapsed that. Is that the only substantive change? Does the translation omit other material (and if so, what?)?



Answer



See here (pp. xvii-xviii) for a list of what the JPS Miqra'ot Gedolot omits from their translation of the commentators, what they retain, and what they change from the originals.


women - Elohim - Female Image of G-d


There is a group that teaches that analyzing the words in Genesis 1:26 :






  1. And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."




  2. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.





The reason why two images came out, one male and one female, is because G-d has two images, a male and a female image, and that Elohim represents that. Here is a video where they explain it better :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdGiwk5ohNQ . How true is that? Is it possible for Elohim to mean that G-d has two images, a male and a female image? Thanks!




kashrut kosher - Can a secular Jew drink non mevushal wine that he touched?


If a secular (non-observant) Jew touches wine that isn't mevushal does that render it not kosher for him to drink?


Nafka Mina: gifting non-mevushal wine to a secular friend.




everyday chemistry - What is smell??How come 2 things have the same smell



I have been wondering how something smells.

How come something smells the same as other thing? What is similar in them?
Like what is the chemistry behind a particular smell of a substance?




For example compounds with SH (thiol) smell awful and similar, so what is similar between them? I know SH, but I am asking why can't they smell different.




grammar - Sentences ending in て


While in Japan I came across the Kinokuniya mega bookshop, which I fell in love with. I went to one of the top floors, started browsing the Japanese learning books, and found a couple focused on listening and speaking, two of my weakest points, and completely in Japanese, which is another plus. In general they're not too difficult, as I got the ones most suited to my level, but now and then I come across certain things I haven't seen before. One of them is sentences ending in て


An example, from a listening exercise (dialogue between two international students and their host, before going back to their country.)




  • 山川:本当?うれしい、ありがとう。

  • リー:来るとき、連絡してね


Another example:



  • リー:ねえ、覚えてる?去年の4月、私が初めて日本へ来た時、山川さんに空港までむかえにきてもらったね。

  • 山川:もちろん覚えてるよ。リーさん、こんなに大きなかばんを2つも持って

  • リー:そうそう。一人で運べないから、山川さんに手伝ってもらって。本当に助かった。



I have also found examples of it on a Shin Chan volume I'm reading, for example:



  • おやつ食べたら体温計持ってきて


So, what's the purpose of finishing verbs in て at the end of the sentence?


EDIT: I understand the て (order) from the first conversation and the Shin Chan extract. Only the second one is left, which from context I understand is not an order.




radioactivity - What is a product of water ionization?


I've read that radioactive compounds are dangerous because they emit electromagnetic waves (gamma-radiation etc.) that are dangerous for living organisms because they can ionize atoms in molecules.


So if one water molecule is ionized by using radiation, would you then get:


$\ce{H2O -> H^+ + OH^-}$ or would you get free radicals : $\ce{H2O -> H^{.} + OH^{.}}$?



Answer




Water, when hit by radioactive particles, will most likely suffer ionization (or radiolysis). The ejected electron very quickly leaves the vicinity of the affected molecules (in the case of exposure to gamma or beta radiation) or a very chemically stable neutral helium atom is formed (in the case of exposure to alpha radiation), so you obtain short-lived species which will tend to react with most other substances nearby, even if neutral. The electron, after being slowed down considerably, becomes hydrated and can participate in reactions itself. This article has several examples of reactions triggered by radiolysis, and also separates them by their relevant timescales.


Some further examples of reactions involving radiolysis of water via beta particles and gamma rays are (from the very well-cited article "Critical review of rate constants for reactions of hydrated electrons, hydrogen atoms and hydroxyl radicals (⋅OH/⋅O−) in aqueous solution"):


So many possibilities!


Of course, not only are the decay particles damaging, but so are the entities produced by their interaction with matter in the vicinity. If the nuclear decay particle doesn't directly ionize organic matter, reactive species such as $\ce{OH^{.}}$ or $\ce{H^{.}}$ could then react with biomolecules, degrading cells and tissues.


This Wikipedia link has some details on the radiolysis of water. Interestingly, it seems that dissolved hydrogen in water can efficiently suppress the formation of unusually reactive species, presumably as the side reactions eventually cause the formation of hydroxyl anions (if electrons are present in excess) or hydronium cations (if positive charges are present in excess). This image (source) shows a collection of possible reactions in sequence. If you search for articles on water radiolysis, there are many other results, such as these two. It's interesting to note that the effect of radiation on water still doesn't seem to be entirely understood, in part due to our incomplete knowledge of the behaviour of hydrated electrons.




Here's an extra bit of background on radiation and its biological effects (at least for the most common types. There are many ways nuclei can decay).


Depending how far the radiation source is from you, gamma radiation is either the least or the most dangerous type of nuclear decay. If the radiation is coming from well outside your body, then the danger scale goes alpha < beta < gamma. If you happen to have a radioactive nuclide in your pocket, the scale may well become alpha < gamma < beta. However, if the radiation is coming from inside your body (avoid ingesting glowing substances), then the danger scale goes gamma < beta < alpha. Why does radiation behave like that? There are two main effects in play: penetration capacity and ionization capacity.


In collision theory, different types of projectile and target can be characterized by something called an collision cross-section (or absorption cross-section, in nuclear physics), which basically gives you a probability of how likely it is for the projectile to hit a certain target. If the combination of projectile and target have a high collision cross-section, they they are very likely to interact, and so almost any projectile will be stopped by even a thin target. If the collision cross-section is low, then the projectile has a low chance of hitting the target, and therefore will tend to pass through it entirely. To compensate, you need to make a very thick target so there are more chances for the projectile and target to interact.


The different types of radioactive decay have different penetrating capacities. All of matter as we know it is composed of atoms, which contain well-defined oppositely charged regions (the nuclei and the electron shells), and so we can expect them to interact strongly with other charged particles. Alpha and beta(-minus) decays emit particles with a charge of $+2e$ and $-e$, respectively ($+e$ for beta-plus decay). We then expect these particles to interact strongly with matter, being stopped easily. Indeed, most alpha particles are efficiently stopped even by air. Beta particles have half the charge of an alpha particle and are going quite a bit faster (having approximately 1/7000th the mass), so they manage to go further before interacting. A few centimetres of of metal shielding or a concrete wall are usually enough to stop them. However, gamma rays have no charge, so they interact comparatively weakly with matter. These highly energetic photons will go though dozens of centimetres of solid matter. To maximize the odds that they will hit something and be stopped, you want to use a shield made of a very dense substance (which would pack a lot of possible targets in a small space). This is why lead is the substance of choice for radioactive shielding; its high density combined with low cost allows the fabrication of relatively compact shields which are capable of stopping even gamma radiation, when around 10 cm thick.



Now, for the mechanism of how particles from radioactive decay are stopped. For uncharged particles, the absorption cross-section is low because interactions only happen when the uncharged particle comes very close to a target particle. For gamma rays (very high energy photons), when there is an interaction, it is usually due to Compton scattering, where an energetic photon interacts with an electron, giving it a large amount of kinetic energy, while the photon is re-emitted with a smaller amount of energy. The target electron (not necessarily a valence electron) often gains enough energy to be completely removed from the atom, causing ionization.


For collisions between charged particles (both same and opposite charges), interactions happen much more easily, as charges interact strongly even at comparatively much larger distances. Beta-minus particles (very fast electrons) can more efficiently repel electrons and shove away from atoms, creating cations. Alpha particles (bare helium-4 nuclei) are interesting because their positive charge means they can tear electrons from any atom or ion. In fact, it's defensible that alpha particles are the strongest Lewis acid one can commonly find; they are effectively free protons with twice the charge.


Notice that penetration capacity and ionization capacity are inversely correlated; if a radioactive decay particle is strongly ionizing, it interacts well with matter and is stopped in short order. If it is weakly ionizing, one of the main interaction mechanisms is suppressed, and the decay particle can go further before it is stopped. In order to not damage you, you want the nuclear decay products to not dump their energy in your body, i.e. you want them to pass right through you. Here, it is clear that alpha particles are the most dangerous, followed by beta and gamma radiation. However, alpha particles interact so strongly with matter that they literally need to be released closer than your skin to dump energy into living tissue, so you need to ingest, breathe or inject alpha emitters. When this happens, they are extremely deadly. It is a very rare occurrence, however, since radiation usually comes from far outside. In that case, gamma radiation has a larger chance of reaching you, so it is said to be the most dangerous.


Friday, March 29, 2019

physical chemistry - Application of the Arrhenius equation to a parallel reaction


I'm struggling with this homework question: "For a parallel reaction A goes to B with rate constant $k_1$ and A goes to C with rate constant $k_2$, you determine that the activation energies are 71.9 kJ/mol for $k_1$ and 142.8 kJ/mol for $k_2$. If the rate constants are equal at a temperature of 321 K, at what temperature (in K) will $\frac{k_1}{k_2} = 2$?"


I know I have to use $k=Ae^{\frac{E}{RT}}$, and I've tried solving for $T$ after filling in my data into the formula as ratios, ie $\frac{k_1}{k_2}$, $\frac{E_1}{E_2}$, etc, but I can't seem to get a coherent answer.


I tried $\ln\frac{k_1}{k_2})=-\frac{E}{R}\left(\frac{1}{T_1}-\frac{1}{T_2}\right)$ as well, but in that case I don't know what $E$ I'm supposed to use.


Any guidance on figuring this out would be much appreciated.




modulation - Are there amplitude and phase characteristics of harmonic signal components?


Nonlinear amplifiers are characterized by their AM/AM and AM/PM. That's what I thought. But now I have a question: The amplitude and phase distortion characteristics, do they only belong to the fundamental signal component?



I mean, to fully characterize my amplifier, are there AM/AM and AM/PM characteristics for the harmonic components as well?



Answer



If the amplifier is memoryless (i.e. there is only AM/AM conversion and no AM/PM conversion) and the input signal is bandpass (centered around some carrier frequency $F$), for input signal:


$$ x(t) = a(t)\cos(2\pi Ft + \alpha(t)) $$ the output signal $$ y(t) = v(x(t)) = v(a\cos(2\pi F t)) = v(a \cos \theta) $$


can be expanded using a Fourier series: $$ v(a\cos\theta) = v_0(a) + v_1(a)\cos(\theta) + v_2(a)\cos(2\theta) \ldots $$


If the amplifier is memoryless, the coefficients $v_m(a)$ are real and determine the harmonic amplitudes, and there is only AM/AM conversion and no phase shift on the harmonics.


The coefficients are known as the "Chebyshev Transform" of the nonlinearity $v(x)$ and are given by: $$ v_m(a) = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^\pi v(a \cos\theta)\cos(m\theta)d\theta $$ If the amplifier has some memory, but "not much", it is known as a "quasi memoryless" system, and the coefficients are complex (giving AM/PM conversion).


To characterize the amplifier, you would need to measure $v_m(a)$ for each harmonic $m$. However, since usually all you need is the first harmonic because others will get filtered out later, you can measure $v_1(a)$ from standard power out/power in curves. (The same ones used to measure 1dB compression and 3rd order intercept). The power gain measured in this curve is just $(v_1(a)/a)^2$.


Source: appendix C of: https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/5327/ku_hyunchul_200312_phd.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


talmud gemara - How do we know that penguins are non-kosher?


Did anyone posek that penguins are (non)kosher?


Well, the same question might be regarding the swans.


The Sonchino edition Talmud Bavli, Chullin 62B says:



"R. Huna said: Bunia is permitted parwa is forbidden"


And in the footnotes:


"The penguin and the sea mew respectively."


How do they know that bunia is the penguin indeed? (Did our sages even saw penguins?)




history - Earliest documentation of kissing



What are the earliest sources you know of that mention kissing (be it romantic, familial, kissing mezuzos/tefillin/torah etc.)? There are obvious tznius issues when it comes to people kissing other people, so perhaps that is a separate question.


I ask because it would appear that kissing may not be an originally Jewish invention. There is (secular) documentation that many non-Jewish groups practiced kissing, both romantic and otherwise going back approximately three thousand years, at least in Europe, the Middle East and South Asia.




Answer



Brashis 27:27 is the earliest source in the Torah of kissing. This was when Yaakov kissed Yitzchok prior to the Brachos.


ויגש וישק לו וירח את ריח בגדיו ויברכהו ויאמר ראה ריח בני כריח שדה אשר ברכו יהוה


halacha - Source that a Jewish girl is forbidden to have relations with a non Jew


I see that it is forbidden for a Jewish girl to get married to a non-Jew (E"H 16.1) but why is she forbidden to have relations with him without marriage?


Source please.


(I guess the source might be that she becomes a zona)




parshanut torah comment - Is there a difference in meaning between קָדֹֽשׁ and קֹֽדֶשׁ?


I am helping my son lain parshat Emor. He's having a hard time seeing the difference between קֹֽדֶשׁ and קָדֹ֥שׁ esp. when they are written the same. Usually, when I train students to lain, I try to help them understand the meaning of the words and their surrounding context, as that tends to help know how to pronounce similarly written words.


I'm stumped on these two, though. Here's an example of a verse that uses both forms.


Leviticus 21:6:




קְדֹשִׁ֤ים יִהְיוּ֙ לֵאלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ם וְלֹ֣א יְחַלְּל֔וּ שֵׁ֖ם אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֑ם כִּי֩ אֶת־אִשֵּׁ֨י יְהוָ֜ה לֶ֧חֶם אֱלֹהֵיהֶ֛ם הֵ֥ם מַקְרִיבִ֖ם וְהָ֥יוּ קֹֽדֶשׁ׃



They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the bread of their God, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy.


The English translation is from Sefaria. It may be inaccurate, as, inevitably, nuances tend to hide within translation. Is one word a noun and the other an adjective? Otherwise, what's the difference in meaning?




grammar - 「もんか」の使い方を教えてくれませんか?


How do you use もんか? Once, I saw this sentence: お前に俺の気持がわかるもんか. I understand the meaning but I don't know how you can use it




nomenclature - IUPAC name of a salt made of both cationic and anionic complexes



The IUPAC name of the complex compound [Ni(NH3)4][NiCl4] is



In my opinion the correct answer should be Tetrachloronickel(II) tetraamminenickelate(II), because nickel has got more oxidation number when there are chlorine atoms and therefore it should be named first. But the correct answer seems to be Tetraamminenickel(II) tetrachloronickelate(II).



Answer



The coordination compound $\ce{[Ni(NH3)4][NiCl4]}$ contains two coordination entities, $\ce{[Ni(NH3)4]^2+}$ and $\ce{[NiCl4]^2-}$, which can be named separately.


The rules for formulating and naming coordination compounds are presented in Chapter IR-9 of the current version of Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry – IUPAC Recommendations 2005 (Red Book). An abridged version is included in the IUPAC Technical Report Brief guide to the nomenclature of inorganic chemistry. Pure Appl. Chem. 2015, 87(9–10), 1039–1049 as well as in the corresponding four-sided lift-out document, which is available as supplementary material.


Generally, ligand names are listed as prefixes to the name of the central atom along with any appropriate multipliers. Names of anionic coordination entities are furthermore given the ending ‘ate’. The oxidation number of the central atom may be indicated by a Roman numeral appended in parentheses to the central atom name; alternatively, the charge on the coordination entity may be indicated.



Therefore, the systematic name for $\ce{[Ni(NH3)4]^2+}$ is tetraamminenickel(II) or tetraamminenickel(2+), and the systematic name for $\ce{[NiCl4]^2-}$ is tetrachloridonickelate(II) or tetrachloridonickelate(2−).


In a salt made of both cationic and anionic coordination entities, the line formula for each ion is separately enclosed in square brackets. The cation is placed before the anion and no individual charges are shown:


$\ce{[Ni(NH3)4][NiCl4]}$


The systematic name of the entire compound is formed by combining the name of the electropositive constituent, cited first, with that of the electronegative constituent, both suitably qualified by any necessary multiplicative prefixes. The two parts of the name are separated by a space.


Therefore, the systematic name for $\ce{[Ni(NH3)4][NiCl4]}$ is tetraamminenickel(II) tetrachloridonickelate(II) or tetraamminenickel(2+) tetrachloridonickelate(2−).


Note that the ligand name ‘chloro’ is obsolete. According to current IUPAC recommendations, the correct ligand name is ‘chlorido’.


halacha - Under what conditions may one leave Eretz Yisroel?


According to many Rabbinical Authorities you are only allowed to leave Eretz Yisroel if you have a valid reason. For example Parnasa (livelihood). What other reasons are valid for one to be able to leave Eretz Yisroel?



Answer



From Rambam Hilchot Melachim 5:9 (emphasis mine):




It is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora at all times except:


to study Torah;


to marry; or


to save one's property from the gentiles.


After accomplishing these objectives, one must return to Eretz Yisrael.


Similarly, one may leave Eretz Yisrael to conduct commercial enterprises. However, it is forbidden to leave with the intent of settling permanently in the Diaspora unless the famine in Eretz Yisrael is so severe that a dinar's worth of wheat is sold at two dinarim.


When do these conditions apply? When one possesses financial resources and food is expensive. However, if food is inexpensive, but a person cannot find financial resources or employment and has no money available, he may leave and go to any place where he can find relief.


Though it is permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael under these circumstances, it is not pious behavior. Behold, Machlon and Kilyon were two of the great men of the generation and they left Eretz Yisrael only out of great distress. Nevertheless, they were found worthy of death by God.



discrete signals - Given the input and the output, how to determine the impulse response?


I would like to find the impulse response, $h[n]$, of an LTI system given the input


$$x[n] = [1,-3,2]$$


and the output


$$y[n] = [1,-1,-4,4]$$



I know that $y[t]=x[t]*h[t]$, but I am having hard time to figure out the right way to calculate the impulse response. I know very little about signal processing, so if you don't mind giving an easy explanation, then I appreciate it. Or, if it's possible to do an example, that's better.




grammar - Why is し added at the end of this sentence?


A person says these phrases:



嫌ではないです(it's not disgusting)



というか... (I mean...)


どっちかっていうと (If I had to choose) - /I'm not sure about this translation I made here/


...気持ちいいし (and it feels good?)



I know し means "and", "in addition", "what's more", etc but I don't know why is at the end of this sentence since there's no enumeration or additional comment. Perhaps I misunderstood something in my translation?



Answer



し at the end of a sentence can be used to state a reason as l'électeur suggested. It's especially for negative reasons.


e.g.) このアパートは借りたくないですね。古いですし、汚いですし、家賃も高いですし。


But し is also a slangy suffix used by young people.




十代から二十代前半の女子が最近当たり前のように 会話や文章の語尾に「し」を付けているのが気になる。 頻繁に聞く例としては『っていうか、誰だし』の「誰だ」の後に着く「し」



【若者言葉 語尾に付ける~「し」】 - amurohair



最近、知人やネットで、語尾に不自然に「し」をつける場面を多数見かけます。 例え ば、 「せっかく来たんだからゆっくりしてけし。」とか、 「今の話もう少し笑えし。」とか、 「そんなこと言うなし。」とか。



「~し。」というのは流行りの若者言葉なんですかし。最近、知人やネット... - Yahoo!知恵袋



最近「○○すんなし!」みたいな、語尾が「なし」の否定的な話し方というか、ネットとかでもみかける言葉なんですが、あれってなんなんですか?




最近の流行り言葉?最近「○○すんなし!」みたいな、語尾が「なし」の否定... - Yahoo!知恵袋


This seems to be derived from the Koshu dialect. The original sense looks like a strong order or request.



これは、朝のテレビ小説「花子とアン」で一躍?有名になった甲州弁です。 「~し」で「~しなさい」という、強い依頼・命令を表します。「馬鹿にすんなし」、「ふざけんなし」、「頑張れし」、「仲良くしろし」など、通常の命令形の後ろに「し」を付けてその意味を強調するのが基本的な使い方です。



「馬鹿にすんなし」、「ふざけんなし」などたまに「~し」を語尾につけること... - Yahoo!知恵袋


It seems to me し in the sentence you've shown is a slang. It still makes sense without し.


Thursday, March 28, 2019

Farrow fractional delay filter - Range of delay?


I am implementing a fractional delay for resampling purposes, using the Farrow structure to enable continuously variable delays. For now I am simply using windowed sinc functions as my low-pass filters. My method was originally as follows:



  1. Create a series of $K$ $N$-sample windowed sinc functions covering the delay range: $N/2-1$ to $N/2$, and all the fractional delay values ($d$) in between.

  2. For each sample across all the filters, create a $K-1^{th}$ order polynomial in d to replace the coefficients.

  3. Stick the poynomial coefficients into a Farrow structure filter, and Bob's your uncle.


However, on reading some papers this for example, it became apparent that I need to consider the "overall filter"; all the separate polyphase branch filters from the farrow structure lumped together. Now, taking this into account, if I crate my individual filters as above, ranging from $N/2-1$ to $N/2$, then I have a problem, as shown in the image. The "overall filter" is not a nice lowpass function anymore. Essentially it the two filters at $N/2-1$ and $N/2$ are the same, just delayed 1 sample, so we get the reptition of values shown in the plot.



Bad sinc


My attempt at solving this is instead to create my initial filters over the range N/2-1+0.5/K : N/2-0.5/K. This way, they are still evenly distributed in terms of delay and now the "overall filter" looks great:


Good sinc (yes I know it's not windowed :)


BUT... now my delays do not cover a full sample of fractional delay, but instead $1-1/K$ samples. The only way to approach a full 1-sample range is to increase $K$, the number of filters created at the start, and this is not ideal as it just increases computation and I am VERY restricted in that sense.


I also tried a second approach, creating $K$ original filters, then approximating with an $L^{th}$ order polynomial, where $L < K$. This allows me to create a large ($K$) number of filters to start with, so I can get very close to the full N/2-1 : N/2 range, then approximate with a low order polynomial. This is OK, but it does introduce some unwanted artefacts into the "overall filter" response.




So, my questions is this: Is there a way to have it all; a low-order farrow fractional delay filter, that covers the full range of a sample delay, without introducing any nasties into the frequency response of the "overall filter"?


Any thoughts welcome :)


P.S. I know the sinc functions in the plots are rectangular windowed and thus have a high sidelobes, but this is not my problem.




organic chemistry - Was Wöhler’s urea synthesis carried out with or without oxygen?


I learnt and was very impressed by the urea synthesis by Wöhler in 1828. The reaction was the heating of ammonium cyanate. One of my textbooks in the library said that ammonium cyanate was heated ‘in the absence of oxygen’.


But when I tried reading other organic chemistry textbooks, they also did mention the synthesis but never talk about whether it was anaerobic. Could anyone suggest a reliable source which clearly state about this matter?


enter image description here




grammar - Meaning of 誰もいはしない in this sentence




「どうせ誰もいはしないと高をくくっていたところもある。」



This one's throwing me for a bit of a loop. The translation says "He also didn't really take the possibility of anyone being there seriously."


It makes sense to me except for the いはしない part. What does this mean?


I looked up い and saw that it can mean stomach, so my first thought was that いはしない was perhaps some idiom like "not doing his stomach" that means "not being there" but I can't find any evidence to justify that on the internet so I have to assume it's wrong.



Answer




「Verb in 連用形{れんようけい}(continuative form) + は + しない」


= "would not (verb) one bit" ← rather emphatic




「い」 is the 連用形 of the verb 「いる」.



「誰{だれ}もいはしない」, therefore, means "no one would be (there)"



You will encounter this grammar pattern over and over.


Note that the 「は」 is occasionally replaced by a 「や」 in more informal speech.


halacha - What bracha do you make on zucchini flowers or the curly "lettuce" used for garnish?


During the past few years I have seen caterers decorate platters with zucchini flowers. Similarly. many platters have some type of dark green or purple lettuce or cabbage (I'm not sure what kind of veggie this is) under the food.


Usually, these things are not eaten raw, but, I guess zuccini flowers in particular are becoming more of a common edible item now than it was about 5-10 years ago. Would the bracha on these 2 be "admah" or still "shehakol" because it's not yet customary to eat thse raw?




thermodynamics - What is the lower bound to the temperature at which a fire can burn?


To have a fire, you need 1) oxygen, 2) fuel and 3) heat. You can have different fuels that burn at different temperatures, but you always need some amount of heat to have a fire.


If you can use any fuel, what is the lowest temperature at which you can have a fire with an open flame? Is it possible to have a fire that's so cold that you can hold your hand in it without burning yourself?



Answer



Fires which burn below about 400°C are known as cool flames, and this is a well known and widely researched phenomenon. Most hydrocarbons and many alcohols can produce cool flames, and the conditions under which they burn depends on the oxygen content available. The most common encounter that most people have with the cool flame effect is through incomplete combustion of a petrol engine, leading to engine knocking.


The lowest recorded cool flame temperatures are between 200 and 300°C; the Wikipedia page references n-butyl acetate as 225°C. You can read a lot more about cool flames on that page. One thing to note is that cool flames are very hard to visibly detect at lower temperatures - both heat and light being two of the by products of the combustion process.


NASA have conducted a number of experiments in space on low temperature combustion of nano droplets of heptane, and this is an interesting area of science still being investigated.



An interesting point to make relates to your question of whether you could hold your hand in the flame and not burn yourself. Clearly the answer is no, but for some cool flames it may take noticeably longer to feel the pain of heat. Paper starts to discolour at about 150°C, but may not burn as ignition temperature is between 220-250°C. For reference, candle flames are about 600-1400°C.


hashkafah philosophy - Guaranteed olam haba?


Certain practices such as learning halachot daily or reciting ashrei three times a day are supposed to guarantee a person a place in olam haba. How exactly does this work? Can a person be an evil sinner but perform one of these charms and magically be absolved of the sins? Why would that be the case?


Is it more of a descriptive thing [ie anyone who would set aside time daily to study a halacha is the kind of person who has her priorities straight and the probability of her making it to heaven is really really good]? If this is the case, why were certain acts chosen over others [seems random]?




Why is −78 °C a magic temperature for organic reactions?



In many organic reactions that I have seen, running the reaction at $\mathrm{-78\ ^\circ C}$ seems to be quite a popular choice, but I've never seen any explanation for this. What makes this temperature such a popular choice?



Answer



Dry ice (solid carbon dioxide) sublimes at −78 °C. Dry ice and acetone are a common cold bath for chemical reactions. The melting point of acetone is -95 °C so the bath never gets cold enough to freeze the acetone. The bubbling of the carbon dioxide gas as the dry ice sublimes keeps the cold bath well stirred.


Typically, though, the temperature in the flask with an ongoing reaction is at least about 5 °C higher than the one in the cooling bath. (Except if using a thermocouple, working at a scale of 10...25 mL and less often implies that the thermometer is in cooling bath, and not in the reaction mixture. Thus, this temperature difference isn't recorded.)


words - 南北銀行 (North-South Bank) meaning



I was watching an anime called Ganbare Goemon and there was this sign that I found a bit strange:


南北銀行


How exactly are you supposed to understand it? I mean, north and south are in opposite directions so isn't it contradictory? Or does it mean that it covers all areas from north to south? Or is it perhaps just a name that doesn't really have any special meaning?


Oh, and I want to mention that English is my second language (I'm from Russia) so maybe there is some sort of language barrier that makes it sound weird for me.



Answer



It means nothing, trust me.


In manga/anime, authors customarily create weird, non-sense or parodic proper nouns for companies, schools, newspapers, etc. They do so because they are legally not allowed to use real existing proper nouns.


There often are, however, "funny" similarities between some of those fictional proper nouns and the real proper nouns that they are named after.


Among the most famous and often used are:




毎朝新聞」← The most famous Japanese newspaper that does not exist!



I have been seeing this imaginary newspaper name in manga, dramas, etc. all of my life. It is so obviously taken from both 「毎日新聞」 and 「朝日新聞」, both of which are existing major newspapers.



「[帝都大学]{ていとだいがく}」、「帝都[銀行]{ぎんこう}」, etc.



You will see those often as well. Upon seeing/hearing the 「[帝都]{ていと}」 part, most Japanese-speakers will think of 「[東京]{とうきょう}」.



クドナルド」 with 「ワ」instead of 「マ」.




The imaginary hamburger chain.


enter image description here


Likewise, 「[南北銀行]{なんぼくぎんこう}」 is just an imaginary bank. It would be pretty useless analyzing the 「南北」 part. It just means "south and north" and , even though this bank does not exist, it looks "normal" for a business name and that is all that matters. Looking "kind of normal" is the key here. Unless it is important to the story, you do not spend much time thinking of a unique and great-sounding proper name. It simply will not serve its purpose.


halacha - Is judging others unfavorably a prohibition?


Is judging others unfavorably a prohibition? If so, what is the source for it?


Also, do any of the sages offer any advice for overcoming judging other unfavorably?




Wednesday, March 27, 2019

food - ka-kosher legit?


I want to know if anyone knows or anyone can help me determine if:


ka-kosher as presented at ka-kosher.com is a legit (orthodox) kosher certification.


I noticed the symbol on a bag of frozen organic broccoli, cauliflower and carrots at Costco and as we know organic and broccoli is hard to come by these days (due to all the insects found in them). I've been looking for an organic frozen broccoli that is kosher for a while now but before I indulge I would like to know if anyone can help me determine if the standards are high (as in orthodox) standards with this kashrut agency.




minhag - What is the origin of the Yeke custom of washing hands before kiddush and is it done only by the person saying kiddush or everyone?


I have heard mention of a Yeke custom of washing hands before kiddush but no explanation of why or whether it is done only by the person leading kiddush or everyone.


Further to the question about origin, how widely (geographically) was this practiced in German Ashkenazi communities?


Further to the question about how it is done, are there any other important elements to the minhag that need to be known to do it correctly?


I'd also be interested in hearing from anyone following this minhag whether it is has ever caused confusion with guests and how this can be avoided. Although this might be considered off-topic?



Answer



To answer the last question:


When I was a bachur (single rabbinical student) in Monsey, NY, I frequently (every 5 weeks, to be Yekkishly exact) ate a meal by R' Shlomo Breslauer (who stems from Frankfurt), the rav of Beth Tefilla. To avoid confusion, he would, right before kiddush, explain his (father's) minhag (custom) that everyone, except the one making kiddush, washes beforehand: It reduces the hefsek (interruption) between kiddush and hamotzi, and keeps order (especially with small children), while not preventing the one making kiddush from saying additional things that strictly speaking are not required for the sake of kiddush.



Indeed, @kouty brings from Ateres Z'keinim (left margin) and Darkei Moshe that only the listeners should practice early hand washing – to avoid the kiddush-maker's speech being a hefsek. This is held by everyone, except for Rabbeinu Tam who sees shomeia' k'oineh (listening, with intention that it should be for himself, is as if he said it himself) as including the aspect of speech that constitutes a hefsek).


aleph bet letters - Eicha - why are the Pesukim with the פ before the Pesukim with the ע?


The first 4 Perakim of Eicha are written in the order of the Aleph Bais. However in Perek 2, 3, & 4 the Pesukim for פ are written before the Pesukim with the ע. Why? And then why in Perek 1 is it in the correct order?



Answer



The Gemara (Sanhedrin 104b) says that it is because peh means "mouth" and ayin means eye, and it therefore symbolizes the sin of the spies, "who said with their mouths [false reports about the Land of Israel] that they did not see with their eyes."


Maharsha there adds that the regular order was retained in the first chapter of Eicha, because otherwise we would think that Yirmiyahu simply had a different ordering of the Hebrew alphabet than we do. (Indeed, some modern scholars claim exactly that.)


Lechem Dim'ah (R. Shmuel de Uceda, a disciple of the Arizal) offers a different reason: in ch. 2 the verse for פ tells of how our non-Jewish enemies gleefully "opened their mouths... hooted and gnashed their teeth," while the ע verse describes Hashem actually carrying out the destruction. In other words, the gentiles began harassing the Jews even ahead of Hashem's granting them license to do so - which in turn was punishment for the spies' sin, as above. Thus, it is appropriate to change the order only beginning here.


Etz Yosef cites Nachalas Binyamin, who says that another reason is because, after all, the spies did start out by speaking the truth - in other words, at first they did put their ayin before their peh. He also cites Alshich, that it is because the צ verse in ch. 1 is King Yoshiyahu's deathbed confession for having disobeyed the word of Hashem's peh, and we don't want to incorrectly imply that he also sinned against Hashem's ayin, which would be implied if they were juxtaposed.


halacha - Does a synagogue have the right to dispose of objects abandoned there?


A particular synagogue has large numbers of abandoned tallesim and tefilin in the drawers in the chapel.


Does the synagogue have the right to dispose of objects abandoned there?


Does the law change where these objects were designed to be used for mitzvos, and are no longer fit because of their decay?




Why are Kc and Kp interchangeable in the free energy-equilibrium equation?



In this equation that relates Standard free energy and the equilibrium constant:


$\Delta Gº=-RT \ln K_{eq}$


My textbook (and my teacher) say both $K_p$ (constant related to pressure) and $K_c$ (constant related to concentration) can be used in the place of $K_{eq}$.


When using the equation that relates $K_p$ with $K_c$



$K_p=K_c(RT)^{\Delta n}$


We would get two different $\Delta Gº$ values, which shouldn't be possible.


My question is, why can we use both constants if their values are different?



Answer



The equilibrium constant is defined by activities:


enter image description here


The activity of a species in a liquid solution can be approximated to: $a=c/c^0$ where c is the concentration of the species and $c^o$ is the standard concentration ($1M$). This approximation leads to $K_{eq}=K_c$. The activity of gasses is called fugacity and it can be approximated to: $f=p/p^0$ where p is the pressure of the gas and $p^0$ is the standard pressure ($1$ $bar$). This leads to $K_{eq}=K_p$. Therefore, if a reaction takes place in e.g. water, one should use $K_c$, but if the reaction takes place in the gaseous state, $K_p$ should be used when calculating $dG$.


signal analysis - Probability error for antipodal systems and orthogonal systems


I know that the error probability for antipodal systems is Q (√((2Fs)/No)) and for orthogonal systems it is Q (√(Fs/No)), however, can anybody give their derivation? Because I am finding different ones on the internet I am getting confused.


I found pages 74-75 useful but I think their derivations are quite short here: http://www.sps.ele.tue.nl/members/F.M.J.Willems/TEACHING_files/5JK00/signalenergyorthogonalsignals.pdf



Answer



I believe that Dilip Sarwate's answer has all the necessary information, but I would like to add a few things that might make it a bit easier for the less initiated to get a better understanding of the formula for the error probability. Furthermore, I want to point out one reason why you can find in different texts slightly different versions of this formula.



First, I think it is important to see that the term in the numerator of the argument of the $Q(\cdot)$ function is simply the distance between the two signals $s_0(t)$ and $s_1(t)$:


$$\sqrt{E_0 + E_1 - 2 \langle s_0, s_1 \rangle}=\sqrt{||s_0||^2+||s_1||^2-2\langle s_0, s_1 \rangle}=\sqrt{||s_0-s_1||^2}=||s_0-s_1||$$


For $||s_0||^2=||s_1||^2=E$, this distance is $2\sqrt{E}$ for antipodal signaling, and $\sqrt{2E}$ for orthogonal signaling, as shown in the figure below (from Digital Communication by E.A. Lee and D.G. Messerschmitt):


signal distances for antipodal and orthogonal signaling


This picture very cleary illustrates the reason why orthogonal signaling requires 3dB more SNR for the same probability of error as antipodal signaling.


Noting that the argument of the $Q(\cdot)$ function is actually half the distance between the signals divided by the square root of the noise variance (which, admittedly, is not rigorously shown in this answer), the value of the $Q(\cdot)$ function is simply the probability that the noise is greater than half the distance between the two signals. Only then will the received signal be closer to the wrong signal, and, consequently, the decision will be wrong.


As for the formula for the error probabiltiy, a source of confusion is the definition of the noise power spectral density $N_0$. There is the one-sided spectral density $N_{0,1}$ and the two-sided density $N_{0,2}$, and they are related by $N_{0,1}=2N_{0,2}$. Unfortunately, everybody just denotes them by $N_0$, so you always have to check which one is meant. For antipodal signaling, the formula for the error probability is


$$P_e=Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{2E}{N_{0,1}}}\right)=Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{N_{0,2}}}\right)$$


And for orthogonal signaling we have


$$P_e=Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{N_{0,1}}}\right)=Q\left(\sqrt{\frac{E}{2N_{0,2}}}\right)$$



The formulas in Dilip Sarwate's answer use $N_0$ as a one-sided power spectral density, or - equivalently (as stated in his answer) - $\frac{N_0}{2}$ as a two-sided density. In any case, the difference between antipodal and orthogonal signaling is always a factor of $\sqrt{2}$.


etymology - Significance of the kanji 茶 in the set phrase 滅茶滅茶{めち ゃめちゃ} / 目茶目茶{めちゃめちゃ}


While having fun looking up random words in my dictionary software, I found out that the phrase "めちゃめちゃ", which is often used in colloquial sentences like "めちゃめちゃかわいい" has two kanji variants:



滅茶滅茶
目茶目茶




For the first variant, 滅茶滅茶, I can imagine the significance of 滅, which implies "destruction", but why with "tea"? The second variant is even absurd (or can I use "mecha-mecha" as a pun here :P), because it's from "eye" and "tea".


Does the kanji character "茶" has any significance in the phrase, or are they just ateji?



Answer



That's just ateji「当て字」, but they used like that because



  • 滅茶滅茶 related with 滅茶苦茶/無茶苦茶 (muchakucha) and base word is 無茶,

  • There is some saying that 無茶 supposed to mean お客さんにお茶を出さない。 (No o-cha?)
    (Don't provide tea to customer, which is unreasonable just like 無茶苦茶. But meaning from 当て字 are not suppose to be used, so above is wrong approach.

  • There is also another saying that 無茶 comes from Buddhist word 無作 (musa/musaku), which has meaning むさぼる (greedy, covet) and 苦茶 is just to emphasize the former.



ref: http://gogen-allguide.com/mu/muchakucha.html


number - Shisha Ushloshim Ushlosh Meyot?


Who knows three hundred thirty six?


ששה ושלושים ושלוש מאות - מי יודע?‏


The traditional Passover song "Echad" implies a possible presupposition that there is a Jewish significance to be found for each natural number. Accordingly, there is an ongoing series on Mi Yodeya that is attempting to unearth significant Judaism facts about each number, in sequence.


What significant Judaism facts are there about the number 336? The more significant within Judaism and the more intrinsically dependent on the value 336, the stronger the answer. Please include sources for your information wherever possible, as with all other answers on this site.


Please refrain from providing lazy gematrias. They are, without question, not wanted.



Answer



There are 354 days in a "normal" Jewish Year and 18 days when we complete Hallel (in Israel) according to the Talmud.


354-18 = 336.



Thus, 336 days in a normal year in which we don't say a full hallel.


safety - What are the effects of Lithium Dioxide on the body?


My question is about how much science-fiction and how much chemistry is involved in the the 'Randy's Donuts' scene of Iron Man 2:



Agent Romanoff injects Lithium Dioxide into Tony Stark's neck to remove the symptoms of Palladium poisoning.



My Question is: Is it safe to inject Lithium Dioxide into our body? Does it have any side effects?



Answer




Is it safe to inject Lithium Dioxide into our body?




No. It will do bad things.



Does it have any side effects?



Yes. It will do bad things.


As lithium is an alkali metal, it does not usually form covalent bonds, so we should treat whatever it makes as ionic. The common form of lithium oxide is $\ce{Li2O}$, which is not that scary. "Lithium dioxide" would be $\ce{LiO2}$. This implies that that lithium is tetravalent, as $\ce{Li^4+}$. This is not possible, as it requires lithium to give away 4 electrons but it does not have 4, only 3. This means that oxygens are in the superoxide form: is $\ce{O2-}$ instead of the more stable $\ce{O^2-}$. That is definitely not stable in isolation at ambient conditions (unlike other alkali superoxides) and I'm not sure where you will get that stuff.


The result of that is that one molecule (or whatever it is) of $\ce{LiO2}$ will really want to convert itself to $\ce{Li2O}$. The superoxide ion is not going to do fun things. For each $\ce{O2-}$ you're going to need 3 more electrons to make it stable, so that is very strong oxidiser.


As a comparison to what this could do to you, I would guess it would be worse than injecting pure hydrogen peroxide (you have about 5% of that in hair bleach), or pure sodium hypochloride (similar 5% in kitchen bleach). This is definitely not going to treat "palladium poisoning" because it will probably kill you beforehand.


That said, using an oxidiser (such as lithium dioxide) to treat noble metal poisoning (such as palladium) seems dubious to me. I'm not a doctor, but I reckon that there are better method to treat that. So why lithium and palladium? I guess is sounds more credible than "using titanium to treat potassium poisoning" but less credible than "using dysprosium to treat beryllium poisoning", both of which make absolutely no sense as "using lithium to treat palladium poisoning".


halacha - Resources for "vertical learning"


New member and first question! I'm looking for resources for guidance in the possibly made-up term, vertical learning. What I mean by that is my learning often suffers from being hodge-podgey and lacking depth/comprehension. I end up jumping from topic to topic. To me, this is horizontal and I often don't get a good enough understanding of the area. What I am looking for is more topic based. Let's say I want to take up the topic of hilchot mezuza or hilchot orlah, is there a guided resource that brings you from mishna down to halacha le'maaseh.


I say guided because it is rather daunting, at least to me, to do it without direction. Any suggestions are welcome.


Update #1: I'll try to give more info on myself - let me know if I leave anything out - I very much enjoy learning, whether it's tanach, shas, halacha or hashkafa. I do not regularly learn but would like to. I believe a routine would help immensely but I think a routine needs less hodge-podge and more structure. I have intermediate Hebrew proficiency, beginner aramaic, it's rare for me to get through a daf without the help of artscroll, tosafot is often out of the question. I would describe myself as having beginner-intermediate skills but poor structure/big picture 


Update #2: I started using the suggested method and have taken up hilchot tefillin going through the tur through the shulchan aruch. It's a pretty extensive area but enjoyable. Does anybody have suggestions for an area that's less ambitious.


Thanks, Hal




meaning - What is the implication when a girl refers to herself using "うち"? Is it meant to be more or less feminine? Neutral? Tomboyish?



I realize it is a kind of Kansai-ben but how does it compare to the other forms of "I" in terms of how they want to represent themselves?



Answer



I think うち is a neutral and common feminine first-person pronoun, at least in part of Kansai region. There, people who use うち use it because everyone else uses it. As long as it is used with fluent Kansai-ben in an informal setting, I would feel nothing special about うち.


Wikipedia says うち is used also by male people in certain regions in Kyushu, but I have not heard that.


Another point is that うち is a casual pronoun, just like 俺. Although some Kansai comedians and geisha are always using it on TV, I usually don't hear うち from Kansai people in a serious situation.


gentiles - Was Eisav Jewish?


Was Eisav Jewish? Eisav was born to the same father and mother as Yaakov. It may be possible to say that Yaakov was not Jewish either as it was before Matan Torah, however if Yaakov was Jewish, then was Eisav also?



Answer



The Gemara (Kiddushin 18a, top) calls Eisav ישראל מומר - an apostate Jew.



Tuesday, March 26, 2019

halacha - Stepping back to answer kedusha while person behind hasn't finished praying


According to Halachipdeia (source) you're not supposed to walk 4 amot in front of a person praying the amidah.



I think you also have certain restrictions regarding which parts of kedusha could be answered prior fully completing your Amidah (taking three steps back and then three steps forward), unless perhaps there's an earlier period where this restriction is removed (perhaps the second yihyu leratzon).


What should you do if the chazzan began the repetition but the person behind you is still reciting the amidah? Do you stay where you are and say the kedushah with whatever restrictions are imposed on you (such as, I've heard, not saying the first sentence of kedusha - nekadesh/nakdishach)? Or does saying the full kedusha take precedence over walking within the 4 amot of a person praying behind you?



Answer



The Mishna Berura (122 sk 4) says if you can't step back because of someone behind you but you have finished saying Shemone Esrei then you can answer even a regular Amen (not just the specific "top priority" responses permitted during, eg., Shema). He quotes some who say you can even answer "Baruch Hu uVaruch Shemo" (an even lower level requirement). It doesn't seem to me that saying the line "Nekadesh" is on that level (cf. OC 125) so it is not clear from here if it could be recited but CYLOR for a final ruling.


It seems clear from this discussion though that one should not break into someone else's Shechinosphere for these responses.


halacha - Changing the spelling of "G-d" and Halachic erasure


Is there a problem of "erasing the name of HaShem" if you erase the English word spelled G-o-d, and if so, is there then a problem of erasing it in order to spell it in a more acceptable way (such as G-d), and if so, is there a problem of simply changing the spelling by erasing the 'o' and replacing it with a '-'?




filters - Transform linear-phase FIR to minimum-phase FIR


Given a FIR filter (non-causal) with phase zero and real coefficients given by $$H(z) = \sum_{n=-M}^{M}h[n]z^{-n}$$ with ripple $\delta_2$.



How can I obtain a filter $H_{{\rm min}}(z)$ of minimum phase of $M+1$ coefficients, from $H(z)$? How are those filter related (amplitudes, $\omega$, ripple)?




I know that if the filter is causal with real coefficients I can use this relation between the original filter and the minimum one:


$$H(z) = H_{\rm min}(z) H_{\rm ap}(z),$$


but in this exercise I can't.


What can I do?



Answer



The procedure you're looking for is called lifting and, as far as I know, it was first introduced by Hermann and Schuessler:



O. Herrmann and H. W. Schuessler, Design of nonrecursive filters with minimum phase, Electron. Lett., 6(11): 329–330, 28th May 1970




The procedure is very well explained in this presentation by Ivan Selesnick. I'll briefly summarize it here, but it's important to look at the figures in the presentation.


Since you have a zero-phase filter, you know that $H(e^{j\omega})$ is real-valued. If you know the maximum error in the stopband $\delta_s$, you can define a new real-valued and non-negative transfer function by adding $\delta_s$ to $H(e^{j\omega})$:


$$H_2(\omega)=H(e^{j\omega})+\delta_s\ge 0\tag{1}$$


In the time domain this simply means adding $\delta_s$ to the central tap $h[0]$. In this way, all zeros on the unit circle become double zeros (look at the corresponding figure in the presentation quoted above). Now you only keep the zeros of $H_2(z)$ that are inside the unit circle, and one of each of the double zeros on the unit circle. In this way you reduce the filter order by a factor of $2$. Now you just need to scale the filter such that its passband amplitude oscillates around $1$. It is a straightforward exercise to derive the actual ripple values of the minimum phase filter given the ripple of the linear phase filter. Again, reading the presentation will help.


grammar - Difference between にとって and として



What differences are there between にとって and として ?


To the best of my understanding, both have meanings of stating something from a certain point of view or perspective. However, I think that there's some kind of nuance/grammar pattern between them that renders them noninterchangeable.


For one, I guess it's ok to say



僕にとって、これは大嫌い。


人間として、人殺しはいけないことだ。



But you couldn't reverse the two to say



僕として、これは大嫌い。



人間にとって、人殺しはいけないことだ。



Intuitively, I'm thinking it has something to do with volitionality?



Answer



In my head, it basically works like this:



X として = As X
X にとって = For X



They can sometimes be interchangeable in the sense that they both make sense, but the meaning is a little different:




  1. として、許せないことだ
    As a parent, it's an unforgivable thing.

  2. にとって、許せないことだ
    For a parent, it's an unforgivable thing.


Same with the murder example. 〜として would mean “As humans, murder is a bad thing”, and 〜にとって would mean “For humans, murder is a bad thing.”


In many cases, only one of them will make sense:



  • 学校として、子供を守らないといけない

    As a school, we have to protect our children.

  • にとって、ハワイに行くのは夢だ
    For me, going to Hawaii is a dream.




〜として goes better with categorial nouns


〜として will more often take categorial nouns, as opposed to specific nouns. For example, 男 is a category, while 僕 is a specific person. “As a man…” or “As men…” is more natural than “As me…”.


But when you add at the end to make 〜としては, it will work with any kind of noun, common or specific. オバマとしては〜, マイクロソフトとしては〜, 君としては〜, are all fine.


yirmiyahu book of - What is the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, spoken of by Jeremiah?(Jeremiah 31:31-34)



Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covenant, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.



—Jeremiah 31:31-34 (JPS).



What is the new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, spoken of by Jeremiah?




tefilla - Proper age to take a child to Shul


What is the proper age for children to begin being taken to Shul?




tefilla - Why do non-orphans leave during Yizkor?



In all the Shuls (Synagogues) I've Davened in over the years, I noticed that all those whose parents are alive leave the shul during Yizkor. Why is this so?



Answer



Taame Haminhagim (589–590) explains (in free translation):



If he remains there, he might say it with them, and there's a covenant made with the lips [that what they say is true comes true]. Another reason is that everyone's busy saying Yizkor and he's silent, and it says in B'rachos that it should not be the case that all are busy etc. There's a slight concern of ayin hara in such a case (as in Y'vamos 106, "Do you have parents in town?" ―"Yes", and he set his eye upon them and they died).



As Alex (thank you!) points out in a comment, the B'rachos quotation, from 20:2, is "so it should not be the case that everyone is busy [praying] and he's sitting idle" (in another context of someone who would not be praying with the community [but would, I assume, be in the synagogue]).


biochemistry - How do we assign alpha/beta status in polysaccharides?


In polysachharides like sucrose or any other disachhaharides, how is it that we assign whether the glycosidic bond is alpha/beta ?


For example the images here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=898328 (kindly refer to the images of the original question, both of them)


How does one decide which glycosidic bonding is alpha and which is beta ? What if one of the monosachharides is alpha and one is beta constituting the disachharides ? How do you know that in the final acetal formation which sachharide acted as nucleophile and which acted as electrophile after seeing the disaccharide , take for example sucrose , glucose/sucrose (?) which acted as nucleophile any why ?





rishonim - History of the two versions of the Ritva


I recall from my time in Yeshiva that the version of the Chiddushei HaRitva in use in the 19th century was clearly not the original (as proved from quotations in the Shita Mikubetzes), and that the original was found recently and is published as the "Ritva HaChadash".


Who wrote the pseudo-Ritva, and how did it enter mainstream circulation? When was the original Ritva lost, and how/where was the original Ritva rediscovered?


EDIT: e.g. here is the title page for a "Ritva HaChadash" on Bava Metziah. If you have Otzar HaChochmah, you can get the whole book. Mossad HaRav Kook apparently also has versions of them; all I could glean was that they were from the Cairo genizah.



Answer



There's a significant amount of literature on this which I'm not going to look up right now, so please excuse the lack of sources; I'll try to edit them in later (they were all found by following the footnotes to introductions to the Mosad Harav Kook editions of the relevant mesechtos, even though the most thorough introduction I believe is that on Eiruvin which includes a short biography of the Ritva)


First of all, it's well known that the Ritva wrote two versions of his commentary on most masechtos, an earlier long one and then a shortened version. For examples, see his comments on Shavuos 26b and Avodah Zara 67b, where he refers to an earlier version of his work. The Nimukei Yosef to Nedarim 40b even implies that the Ritva wrote three versions of his commentary! Almost all of the published Ritvas are from his later edition, but for this reason, it could even be the case that both sets were written by the Ritva (see below).



Here are a few of the masechtos with important Ritva notes (other masechtos with Ritva that I haven't discussed are basically confirmed actual Ritva as everyone has/had them):




  • Berachos commentary was published under R. Yehudah Hachasid and then later under the title 'Shita LeR"A Ashbieli', as it was thought that it might be the Ritva's father, but today it's fairly well accepted that this work is by the Ritva himself.




  • Shabbos the version published in Sloniki called 'Chidushei Haritva' is actually the Ran, which was already noticed and accepted by several achronim, among them the Shita Mekubetzes, Chida, Sokotchover Rebbe, and R. Elchanan Wasserman. Instead, the 'real' Chiddushei HaRitva was known to many of these achronim and published by R. S. Z. Reichman and later by Mosad Harav Kook.




  • Nedarim is today published with almost every version of Chidushei HaRitva, though its true author is the subject of controversy among the Achronim and scholars. It's written in a bit of a different style and sometimes doesn't fit with how the Nimukei Yosef quotes the Ritva, but the reason for this may be that the chiddushim were meant to be a halakha sefer (see the long intro in Mosad Harav Kook version).





  • Gitin what used to be published as Chidushei Ritva to Gitin has been pretty conclusively shown to actually have been written by Rabbeinu Kreskas Vital, a contemporary of the Ritva. However, we have another manuscript of the Ritva's commentary to this masechta as well, and they might be referred to as Ritva Hachadash. (Some people believe that this newer version is also not actually the Ritva - see intro to Mosad Harav Kook Ritva on Chullin).




  • Kiddushin also has (in the Mosad Harav Kook edition) two versions, both of which are a bit unusual. One, the one ironically called 'Mahadurah Basra' because it was published later, is believed (by the editor) to be an earlier version. However, this version has passages in it that seem to have been written by the Ramah (R. Meir Abulafia), and the style is different than that of the Ritva's commentaries that we know of. The one that was published many more times and more well known is also slightly unusual in that he doesn't seem to quote the Rashba at all (though this isn't so unusual) and also because parts of the commentary are actually Tosfos Rid that was together in the same manuscript. Additionally, some things quotes by the Nimukei Yosef from the Ritva don't appear in this commentary.




  • Bava Metsia has two versions, the 'old' one that was known to all of the achronim, and another newly published one, sometimes called the Chidushei Ritva Hachadash, which is the version that is quoted in the Shitah Mekubetzes. Several Achronim have noticed that the Ritva quoted in the Shitah and the Ritva which they had were very different, but none of them (including the Devar Avraham and R. Y.Y. Weinberg) concluded that they were written by different people. The Mosad Harav Kook version published this newer one with Chidushei HaRitva on Bava Metzia, plus the first eleven blatt of the new version. The author of the introduction to that version believes that both of these peirushim were written by the Ritva, one being his earlier version and the other is the later version. However, not all scholars agree with his assessment (again, see intro to Ritva on Eiruvin).





  • Shvuos also has two versions, and like in the case of Bava Metsia, some believe that both versions were written by the Ritva, one being the earlier edition and the other being the later edition. However, I again defer to the editor of the Mosad Harav Kook version of Shvuos, who does not believe that to be the case, and he thinks that only the known version is the authentic (meaning actually written by the Ritva) one.




  • Nidah is indeed the Ritva, but only up until the seventh perek - everything afterwords is actually part of Chidushei HaRashba, and there are very obvisous proofs to this.




Monday, March 25, 2019

organic chemistry - Why are 7-membered rings less likely to form than 5- and 6- membered rings?


I see 5- and 6-membered ring products as the major products even when 7-membered rings are possible. Why is that 5- and 6-membered rings are more likely to form than 7-membered rings? Is it even true?



My textbook says a 5-membered ring is the major product and the 7-membered ring is the minor product in intra-molecular aldol condensation reaction of 6-oxoheptanal.


Major Product: 1-(cyclopent-1-en-1-yl)propan-2-one
Minor Product: cyclohept-2-ene-1-carbaldehyde and 2-methylcyclopent-1-ene-1-carbaldehyde


This is not the only reaction where I found a 5-membered ring as a major product when a 7-membered ring was possible.



Answer



There are two factors that need to be considered to answer your question - entropy and enthalpy.


Entropy favors the formation of smaller rings. If we consider a hydrocarbon chain, the number of possible conformations increases dramatically as we go from 3 carbons to, for example, 10 carbons. Only a few of these conformations will be correctly arranged so that the two ends of the chain are close to each other, which is necessary if we are to form a bond. So, entropically speaking, it will be much more probable to form a 3-membered ring than a 10-membered ring. This is shown in the following graph where 3-, 4- and 5-membered ring formation is entropically most favored.


graph of entropy versus ring size


Note that a less negative $\Delta S$ favors the reaction since $\Delta G=\Delta H - T \Delta S$.


Enthalpy comes into play when we consider the strain in the transition state leading to the possible products. Here is a chart showing the relative ring strain as a function of ring size.



strain energy (kcal/mol) vs ring size


As expected, strain is the highest in 3- and 4-membered rings.


If we overlay (add) these entropic and enthalpic effects we would get a graph similar to the one pictured below.


Rate constants vs. Ring Size for the cyclization of malonates


In general, we find that 5-membered ring formation is usually the favored pathway. This web article (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 1051-1056.) is a nice review of this topic that may be useful for a more in-depth reading on the subject. The above web article is also the source of the above three images.


halacha - Touching a niddah other than one's wife


I am very confused. I had thought that the idea that a Jewish man may not touch a niddah, any niddah, except for perhaps his first-degree relatives, was basic information. Now, someone very knowledgeable has told me that this prohibition is not so; that the rules against touching not-one's-wife are only -- ok, "only" -- from the idea that one thing could lead to another.


This distinction seems like it could make a huge practical difference, for example, with handshaking in a case of significant need, or with jostling people on a bus, and other touch that is clearly (CYLOR) non-affectionate.


So what is the real reason for the prohibition for a Jewish man to touch a woman other than his wife: a pure prohibition on touching any niddah, or as a fence against relations (or against "affectionate touch" of a niddah, which it seems is also prohibited)?


Evidence that it's niddah:





  • The stringencies on chuppat niddah. Although I guess there's a question of at what point the woman is considered married, to me this is good evidence, because the chances that they'd transgress under the chuppah are pretty close to zero. (But maybe, on the other hand, it could be evidence that we obey rabbinical prohibitions even if their motive no longer exists. [But then couldn't the rabbis relax their prohibition for the occasion, especially in view of the embarrassment to the bride?])




  • Much of the layman's Internet, including this article, which states:





The second of these verses [...] [“Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness to uncover her nakedness” (Leviticus 18:19)], applies not just to one’s wife but to any other women as well, married or not (Responsa Rivash 425, Lev. 18:19). The rabbis extend this prohibition to include not just sex, but all touching. And since unmarried women do not go to the mikveh, they are considered to be always in a state of niddah –and therefore always off-limits for sex, or physical contact with men.




But from the same article:


Evidence that it's not niddah:





  • Maimonides and Nahmanides, in a well-known rabbinic debate, consider how serious an infraction it is to touch a woman who is a niddah. According to Maimonides in Sefer Hamitzvot, “whoever touches a woman in niddah with affection or desire, even if the act falls short of intercourse, violates a negative Torah commandment” (Lev. 18:6,30). Yet Nahmanides’ (1194-1270) commentary states that acts such as hugging and kissing do not violate a negative commandment of the Torah, but only a rabbinic prohibition.


    The Siftei Kohen (17th century) further explains Maimonides by stating that he was only referring to hugging and kissing associated with intercourse. There are several places in the Talmud that the Amoraim (talmudic rabbis) hug and kiss their daughters (Kiddushin 81b) and sisters (Shabbat 13a), and their behavior is considered permissible.






  • This answer: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/71543/1516




  • The idea that harchakos are still stricter with one's wife




  • The idea that many distinguished poskim permit strictly non-affectionate touch such as the handshake and jostling mentioned.





CYLOR



Answer



General: There are a number of activities which are rabbinically forbidden with one's wife when she is a nidda distinct from general prohibitions that apply to an ervah (someone carrying a karet prohibition). Incidentally, there are also some restricted activities with an ervah that are permitted with one's wife as a nidda. Most notably, the prohibitions of seclusion (Sanhedrin 37a) and gazing (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 21:4). In general, those activities rabbinically forbidden with one's wife as a nidda, are unrelated to general prohibitions with arayot and the two should not be confused.


Regarding touching a nidda: One is forbidden to touch his wife's body when she is a nidda. (Hilkhot Issurei Biah 11:19). This unique prohibition should not be confused with the general prohibition relating to arayot which likely includes nidda (see Hilhkot Issurei Biah 21:4, but cf. here).


Regarding touching arayot in general, according to Rambam (Sefer Hamitsvot Lo Taaseh 353, Hilkhot Issurei Biah 21:1) there exists a discrete prohibition of "lo tikr'vu l'galot ervah". This includes sexual contact such as hugging and kissing in a sexually pleasing manner. This isn't a prohibition of touching per se, but on intimate contact. Rambam does not indicate that there exists some other rabbinic prohibition other than this. Accordingly, non sexual contact with any erva such as a nidda (other than one's wife) would be permissible.


The one major dissenter in the ranks of the Rishonim, who extends this to contact that is not in and of itself overtly sensual, is Rabbenu Yonah (cited in Orehot Hayyim Vol II Hilkhot Biot Assurot: 13) who writes that any physical contact with a married woman (and I assume other arayot as well) is included in this Biblical prohibition:



איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו וכן הלכה ברורה שהקריבה הזאת היא הנגיעה בידיה או בפניה או בכל אבר מאיבריה כדי ליהנות מן המגע


A man may not approach any flesh of his flesh (Leviticus 18:6), and it is clearly the law that this 'approaching' is [even] touching of her hands, face, or any of her limbs, in order to enjoy the contact.




In summary: Contact with arayot (other than one's wife) such as a nidda who is not one's wife, may be Biblically included in the prohibition of lo tikr'vu. The Torah prohibited not just sexual acts, but other forms of contact that could lead to them. Such contact would not include mere touching according to Rambam, but would include touching according to Rabbenu Yonah if it is done for pleasure.


While other touching would be strictly permissible, obviously everyone needs to employ common sense about what contact is prudent, and what risks leading to sin.


[According to Ramban (hassagot to Sefer Hamitsvot Lo Ta'aseh 353) the prohibition on intimate contact is rabbinic. Accordingly, it would be the rabbis, not the Torah that enacted this fence].


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, ...