Monday, September 30, 2019

continuous signals - How poles are related to frequency response


I have recently fallen into fallacy, considering pole s=1 as there is infinite response at frequency 1. Yet, response was only 1. Now, can you derive the frequency response, given the poles?


Secondly, the theory says that a system is stable when poles are in left s-plane and, thus, decay in time. But, wait. Does'n "pole" mean the infinite response -- the growth in time?


Finally, is it right question in DSP? IMO, D stands for digital whereas s-domain is analog. I do not find s-plane or Laplace transform tags to label my post.



update Thanks for the answers. It seems that I have got it except the one minor but fundamental thing -- the relationship of poles (and zeroes) with frequency. Basically, why are eigenvalues (or, how do you call the $s$ operator/variable) related with frequency? It should be somehow related with exponential growth and Laplace transform. I quite understand that poles happen to be eigenvalues (especially for discrete recurrences). But, how is this related with frequency?



Answer



I think there are actually 3 questions in your question:


Q1: Can I derive the frequency response given the poles of a (linear time-invariant) system?


Yes, you can, up to a constant. If $s_{\infty,i}$, $i=1,\ldots,N,$ are the poles of the transfer function, you can write the transfer function as


$$H(s)=\frac{k}{(s-s_{\infty,1})(s-s_{\infty,2})\ldots (s-s_{\infty,N})}\tag{1}$$


Note that $s$ is a complex variable $s=\sigma+j\omega$, and the frequency variable $\omega$ corresponds to the imaginary axis of the complex $s$-plane. Now we need to get the frequency response from the transfer function. For stable systems this can simply be done by evaluating the transfer function $H(s)$ for $s=j\omega$. So you replace $s$ by $j\omega$ in (1) and you're done. Note, however, that this is only true for stable systems (i.e. if the region of convergence of $H(s)$ includes the $j\omega$-axis).


Q2: How can a stable system have poles?


As you already know, for causal and stable systems, all poles must lie in the left half-plane of the complex $s$-plane. Indeed, the value of the transfer function $H(s)$ will go to infinity at a pole $s=s_{\infty}$, but the frequency response will be OK, because if all poles are in the left half-plane, there are no poles on the $j\omega$-axis (or to the right of it). If you look at it in the time-domain, then each (simple) pole has a contribution of $e^{s_{\infty}t}$ to the system's impulse response. If the pole is located in the left half-plane, this means that $s_{\infty}=\sigma_{\infty}+j\omega_{\infty}$ has a negative real part $\sigma_{\infty}<0$. So


$$e^{s_{\infty}t}=e^{\sigma_{\infty}}e^{j\omega_{\infty}}$$



is an exponentially damped function and does not grow but decays, because $\sigma_{\infty}<0$.


Q3: Does this question belong here?


Other community members have to judge whether this question belongs here. I think that it does. It is obviously not directly related to pure DSP, but DSP engineers very often also have to deal with analog signals and systems before AD conversion, so they also know about continuous system theory. Second, almost all DSP people (at least the ones with traditional training) got quite some exposure to general signals and systems theory, including continuous-time and discrete-time systems.


By the way, for discrete-time systems you get the $\mathcal{Z}$-transform instead of the Laplace-transform, and your complex variable is now called $z$ instead of $s$. The variable $D$ that you've mentioned is defined as $D=z^{-1}$ and is mainly used in the coding literature. By its definition, it denotes a delay element, so $D$ stands for "delay" (not "digital").


If you know that the left half-plane of the complex $s$-plane maps to the region inside the unit circle of the complex $z$-plane (i.e. $|z|<1$), and the $j\omega$-axis maps to the unit circle $|z|=1$, then almost everything you know about one of the two domains will easily carry over to the other domain.


usage - What is the difference between 大事 (daiji) and 大切 (taisetsu)?


These are two words that seem like they are basically interchangeable at most levels, as they generally are. The difference between them appears to be small, but what is the difference, if one exists? I feel like there are certain situations in which you would use 大事 and certain situations in which you would use 大切. For example, I would associate 大切 with sentimental things because of the 切 in it that comes from 切ない, things like memories, or a present that someone gave you, whereas I would associate 大事 with things that are of pressing importance, closer to 重要. But this does not appear to be the case, as I occasionally see 大切 used where I would normally expect 大事, like 大切なお知らせ, with more of a feeling of 緊急 or urgency. There are sources here and here which address this, but they both arrive at the same wiggly uncertain feeling that 大切 is more emotional and 大事 is more about urgency while admitting that in just about any situation the two can be used interchangeably.


大辞林 isn't much help on the subject. For both it says 重要であるさま, and in 大事 it includes 大切に扱う and in 大切 it includes 大事にする. The only hint I can get from the dictionary entry is in the following for 大切:



大切


丁寧に扱って、大事にするさま。「本を―にする」「命を―にする」




And in the following for 大事:



大事


重要で欠くことのできないさま。ある物事の存否にかかわるさま。「―な用を忘れていた」「今が―な時期だ」



This lends something to the idea of 大切 as a more 'polite' form of importance while 大事 is more about the concept that something is fundamentally necessary and in that regard important. However both of the entries generally seem to be nearly the same with different wording.


Is there a practical difference, and if so, what is it? Does using one over the other have any impact on the actual meaning of a sentence? When can they not be used interchangeably (outside of set phrases like お大事に)?



Answer



As far as I can tell, you've basically hit the nail on the head with the differences between the two.



大切 is listed in the 日本国語大辞典 as (I've removed some of definitions I think are less important):



...
2: 一番必要で、重んずべき物であること。貴重であること。肝要であること。
...
4: 心をくばってていねいに取り扱うこと。大事にすること。かけがえのないものとして心から愛するさま。



So using definition 2, something which is of utmost importance/precious/essential and should be given great regard to, which I see in reference to things which are done (which I think would e.g. be used like 体を大事にするのが大切です, though 大切/大事 could be exchanged there as they can be very similar).


And using definition 4 is with the emphasis on the "treat something mindfully/carefully" and "love something from the bottom of one's heart () as if there's no substitute" which I see more for describing things/people as in 大切な(物・者) (though it's also listed as "treated as 大事").





And for 大事 (as an adjective):



1: かけがえのないものとして大切にするさま。大切。
2: 評価して心にとめるべきさま。重要で根本にかかわるさま。



So it's used for things which are to be treated as 大切 as if they can't be replaced, or a state where something should be valued and given heed to, so there's a lot of overlap, but I believe that 大切 is more about the /sentimental/emotional sense and is more subjective and 大事 more about being fundamentally important/valuable and is more objective.


Note that 大事 can also be used as a noun to mean an important task/large undertaking (as in 大事業) or an important thing etc.


Tensor in signal processing


I saw a lot of use of tensor in signal processing. What is the intuition behind it? Is it simply a common representation for audio (1D), image (2D) and video (3D) signals?



Answer




This has little to do with intuition. Tensors are rigorously defined mathematical objects, and in general simple arrays don't qualify as tensors. Specifically, signals are not tensors.


In the language of mathematics, and there the field of differential geometry, a tensor is a linear function with several arguments. It is therefore also called a multi-linear form. It is used to describe properties of manifolds at a single point.


A point on a (smooth) manifold comes with a tangent space that contains all possible "direction" at that point, where a direction is really just a tangent vector at that point. This tangent space at a single point is a vector space and it has the same dimension as the manifold.


The tangent space has a natural so called dual space, which contains the linear functions that map tangent space vectors to real numbers. This is the cotangent space, and it's also a vector space of the dimension of the manifold.


A tensor is now (roughly) a linear function that maps any number of dimensions between the tangent space, the cotangent space and the real numbers.


Tensors typically don't come as singles but in so called bundles, which are the disjoint union of the tensors of all points of the manifold. For example if you have a vector at every point of the manifold then the whole structure is called a vector bundle. Similarly, tensor bundles associate a tensor with every point on the manifold, usually in a smooth way.


In signal processing you can encounter tensors, but usually they are called differently. For example in video processing the image is your manifold (or rather, a function on a 2-dimensional manifold giving the brightness or color for each point) and the velocity field that describes the local motion is a rank 1 tensor field (or bundle) on that manifold.


Tensors also show up a lot in volume data processing, where tensors can describe local properties of the volume data. For example if you have a doppler ultrasonic tomography image, then the velocity data in each voxel is a tensor field as would be mechanical stress in tomographic material analysis.


For a 1-dimensional signals tensors often come in the form of derivative operators. For example if you have a signal $s(t)$, then the operator $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ is a tensor field of rank 1, or just a vector field. More generally, if you multiply that operator with a smooth function $g(t)$, then all possible vector fields on the manifold the signal lives on are of the form $g(t)\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$


To sum up, tensors are a description of differential properties of manifolds. If you want to understand them, you'll have to study differential geometry.



family members - Do I need to honor a grandparent?


Do I get reward (or am commanded, presumably) for honoring a grandparent? Is there some direct opinion like that out there in the Talmud ?




grammar - Identifying who's who?


I have the following sentence, extracted from a textbook,



こちらからお願いに伺うべきところを先方{せんぽう}からお出{い}でいただき、恐縮した。



This sentence feels a bit overly polite which does not help me. I think that こちら is the one who speaks (it could be a legal entity but since the verb is お出でいただく I assume that it is an actual person), 先方 is the one who did the favor to the subject here omitted.


So I understand “お願いに伺うべきところを” as “at a time where you should have asked me a favor”. 先方 seems to means someone else in one's in-group (内).


If I understood correctly, here, the speaker explains that he/she feels sorry for not having been the person to come while he/she feels strongly he/she should have been asked.


Is this interpretation correct or did I fumbled my way around with 先方 and お出でいただく?



Answer




「こちらからお願いに伺うべきところを」 means "Even though I was (originally) the one who should go (to them) to ask them a favor." (≂「私のほうからお願いに行くべきなのに」)


「先方からお出でいただき」 means "They came to me." (≂ 「相手に(私のところへ)来てもらって / 相手のほうから(私のところへ)来てくれて」)


先方 is the person (or people) that こちら(= 私, the speaker) should have visited and asked a favor of. (先方 isn't someone in こちら's in-group.)


おいでいただく is the humble form of 来てもらう (lit. "I have them come (to me).").


So I think the sentence means something like...



Even though I/we should have visited them to ask them (something), they came to me/us instead, so I/we felt very sorry/obliged.



reaction mechanism - What did actually happen when Staudinger tried to synthesise diamond?


It is a famous reaction that used to be a teaching lab experiment, but is now banned in Germany, because it is too dangerous. To quote-translate quite liberally from the German www.seilnacht.com:



In a stone quarry near Zurich, Hermann Staudinger attempted to artificially produce a diamond by reacting the potassium-sodium melt with tetrachlorocarbon in a bomb tube. The attempt failed as the mixture tore the bomb tube apart.
In einem Steinbruch bei Zürich versuchte Hermann Staudinger einen Diamanten künstlich herzustellen, indem er die Kalium-Natrium-Schmelze mit Tetrachlorkohlenstoff in einem Bombenrohr reagieren ließ. Der Versuch misslang, da die Mischung das Bombenrohr zerfetzte.



I was probably one of the last students who were still able to see this experiment, and while considerably down scaling the actual set-up, it was still one of the most powerful explosions I ever witnessed.


To me it was actually surprising that I found pages, while researching this reaction, that asked whether $\ce{CCl4}$ can act as a solvent in the Wurtz Reaction, or that in the Wurtz reaction of carbon tetrachloride and sodium no product would be formed, because $\ce{CCl4}$ is too stable to react.


However, due to this I found the following passage in Inorganic Chemistry:




Tetrahaloalmethanes can be reduced by strong reducing agents, such as alkali metals. For example, the reaction of carbon tetrachloride with sodium is highly exoergic: \begin{align} \ce{CCl4 (l) + 4 Na (s) &-> 4 NaCl (s) + C (s)}& \Delta_\mathrm{r}G^\circ &=\pu{-249 kJ mol^-1} \end{align} This reaction can occur with explosive violence with $\ce{CCl4}$ and other polyhalocarbons, so alkali metals such as sodium should never be used to dry them.



Unfortunately I reached a dead end with finding more literature about the reaction. I am especially interested in the mechanism, and the final products. I would assume that the above equation only represents a theoretical model, and the products will likely be carbon dioxide and other combustion related products. I'd be interested to know if there are any practical and/ or theoretical studies to the kinetics and thermodynamics of the reaction.


If the source does not cover tetra-, but tri-, or bihalogenated methane, I assume it is fine, too, but it should go beyond the Wurtz reaction ($\ce{2 R-Cl + 2 Na -> R-R + 2 NaCl}$).




everyday chemistry - Why is it that every snowflake is unique?


It's pretty hard to believe in around 4.5 billion years of this planet's existence, no snowflake pattern was repeated, and that's not including potential earth-like planets.


Is there a proof to the structure or is the probability even more statistically insignificant than I thought, or what?



Answer



It turns out that 2 identical snowflakes have been observed, but...


Two Identical Snowflakes


Although when we think "snowflake" we usually picture an object with 6-fold radial symmetry, snowflakes actually come in many different shapes (reference 1). Many sites report that in 1988 an NCAR researcher found 2 identical snowflakes of the hollow columnar variety (reference 2 - see "Uniqueness" section, reference 3). This pattern is much simpler than the 6-fold radial design, so the odds of finding 2 identical flakes are vastly improved.


But


If you wanted to confine the question to snowflakes of the 6-fold radial variety, then an argument can be made that 2 identical snowflakes will not be found.


enter image description here



enter image description here


Due to the vapor pressure difference between ice and water, vapor is pushed from water towards the ice (hence, the ice grows) in an ice-water droplet falling through the atmosphere. As it falls through different temperature zones, the rate of ice crystal growth will change leading to different dendritic patterns along the radial arms. Further, due to perturbations caused by temperature and wind gradients across a single crystal, each radial arm will have a slightly different pattern.


The mathematical argument against identical (6-fold radial) snowflakes is, as Jon Custer suggested in his comment, based on factorial probabilities. The argument goes something like this. If you have 10 different pictures to put in an album you could arrange them in 10! (10 factorial) or 3,628,800 different ways. If you look at a snowflake under magnification, there are easily over a hundred different features that are identifiable. In this case there are over 100! or greater than $10^{158}$ possible arrangements of these identifiable features. Estimates are that there are around $10^{80}$ atoms in the universe. Each visible feature in a snowflake contains a large number of water molecules and an even larger number of atoms. Hence, the number of possible arrangements is far, far greater than the number of available atoms, making it extremely improbable that a duplicate of a complex snowflake would be created.


If you're still not convinced, we can add another level of probabilistic protection. Remember that there are isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen. The probability of finding two 6-fold radial snowflakes with the same dendritic pattern and the same isotopic substitution pattern is even closer to zero.


acid base - Confusion on ion product of water


The ion product of water is defined as $$ K_w = [\ce{H+}][\ce{OH-}] $$ and in pure water $ [\ce{H+}] = [\ce{OH-}]= 1.0 \times 10^{-7}$ and $ K_w = 1.0 \times 10^{-14}$. It is said that if we dissolve some acidic substance in water then $[\ce{H+}]$ will increase and $[\ce{OH-}]$ will decrease and the value of $K_w$ remains constant. I understand that $[\ce{H+}]$ increases because acids donate $\ce{H+}$ (according to Brønsted definition of acids) but how $[\ce{OH-}]$ decreases. I mean a water molecule i.e. $\ce{H2O}$ will certainly break into $\ce{H+}$ and $\ce{OH-}$ and to this $\ce{H+}$ our acid has added it's part and hence it's concentration has increased but why the value of $[\ce{OH-}]$ gets lowered from $1.0 \times 10^{-14}$ , if water molecule were to ionize then whenever $\ce{H+}$ gets formed simultaneously we would get $\ce{OH-}$.



I can cite a common example problem



The concentration of $\ce{OH-}$ ions in a certain household ammonia cleansing solution is $0.0025$. Calculate the concentration of $\ce{H+}$ ions.



We can solve this problem by using the equation $$ K_w = 1.0 \times 10^{-14}$$ $$ [\ce{H+}] [\ce{OH-}] = 1.0 \times 10^{-14}$$ and if put the value of $[\ce{OH-}]$ in the above equation and solve $[\ce{H+}]$, then we would get $ 4.0 \times 10^{-12}$. Here we observe that the value of $[\ce{H+}]$ has decreased from the it's original value in pure water, well this is understandable because ammonia being a base would consume $\ce{H+}$ but how the value of $\ce{OH-}$ has increased.


I want to know that how the chemical reaction can cause the increase or decrease of $\ce{OH-}$ when each molecule of $\ce{H2O}$ always going to yield one $\ce{H+}$ and one $\ce{OH-}$ always.


Thank you. Any help will be much appreciated.



Answer



Another way to look at the problem:


If we add $\ce{H+}$ to the water through adding acid, then some of the $\ce{H+}$ would just remain in the solution as is, and some of them would react with $\ce{OH-}$ in the reaction $\ce{H+ + OH- -> H_2O}$. How much of the added $\ce{H+}$ reacts? To calculate this, you need to know that $\ce{[H+][OH-] = K_w}$ remains constant. So while $\ce{H+}$ is increased, $\ce{OH-}$ is decreased through $\ce{H+ + OH- -> H_2O}$.



If we were to add $\ce{OH-}$ to the water through bases, the same thing would happen: a portion would react with $\ce{H+}$ and a portion would remain in the solution, and it will happen in such a way that is dictated by the constant value of $K_w$.


tefilla - Why don't some people answer Boruch Hu Uvoruch Shemo in Chazzan's repetition of Shemona Esrei?


The custom is when someone is being Yotzei in a Mitzva from someone else (such as hearing the Shofar or reading of the Megilla), the person listening does not answer 'Boruch Hu Uvoruch Shemo' to the one making the Brocha. I assume the reason is that this would constitute a Hefsek - interruption between the Brocha & the Mitzva the Brocha is going on. However, I have noticed people who refrain from saying 'Boruch Hu Uvoruch Shemo' during the Chazzan's repetition of Shemona Esrei. What would be the reason for this? The Congregation already Davened their own Shemona Esrei so they aren't trying to be Yotzei with the Shliach Tzibur?



Answer



The Gra did not recite ברוך הוא וברוך שמו because it may prevent answering amen (Maaseh Rav, 43) or because he considered it to be a hefsek (Tosefes Maaseh Rav). See also Earliest source for "Baruch Hu U'Baruch Sh'mo".


Sunday, September 29, 2019

atoms - Why is Astatine monoatomic?


I learnt that halogens always form covalent bonds to becoms diatomic molecules. So why is astatine monoatomic?


I mean they have the same properties, why shouldn't they all be diatomic?



Answer




One key problem with astatine is that it's incredibly unstable. There are no known stable isotopes, and the longest-lived has a half-life of ~8 hours. So no one has been able to (yet) prepare enough to make real measurements. Thus, we don't know for sure whether solid At is diatomic (like the other halogens) or monatomic.


On the other hand, high-level first-principals (quantum) calculations have been performed that suggest astatine has some unusual properties. The full paper by Roald Hoffmann and Neil Ashcroft at Cornell was published in 2013 in Phys. Rev. Lett.: "Condensed Astatine: Monatomic and Metallic" and also covered in multiple science news sites, including Chemistry World.


The calculations on At:



predict that it will be a metallic solid. That’s perhaps not so surprising given that iodine, the halogen above it in the periodic table, is itself a dark silvery solid (although not truly metallic itself) and that astatine’s melting point is 302°C. But the real surprise of the new results is that the solid wouldn’t be composed of diatomic molecules, like all the other halogens, but would be monatomic.



Why would At be different than solid $\ce{I2}$?



... The monatomic form appeared only with spin-orbit coupling included. "These effects influence the atoms’ propensity to form certain bonds and crystal structures, usually by reducing molecular binding energies," says Hermann. Earlier calculations have indicated that in the gas phase astatine would still form a weakly bound diatomic molecule.




In other words, it's the spin orbit coupling contribution of relativistic effects that would prevent the formation of diatomic molecules in solid At.


chagim holidays - What will happen when our set calendar ends?


In a recent conversation I was told that the current Jewish calendar was only set till the year 6,000. There was conjecture as to what will happen after that time (assuming Moshiach has not yet arrived). The general consensus was that there will no longer be any Jewish holidays. I would like to know if this is correct. If not please provide an explanation as to what will happen when the calendar runs out.




midrash - From where do we learn that women did not accept the report of the meragelim?


Rabbi Eliyahu Mansour in his derashah on Parashot Wayaq'hel/Pequdei (@ 19:15-19:56) mentioned that, during Het HaMeragelim, the righteous women of 'Am Yisra'el did not accept the meragelim's bad report of Eretz Yisra'el.


From where do we learn this? I am having difficulty finding a source in the Gemara/Midrash.



Answer




Kli Yakar (who cites Yalkut Shim'oni on Numbers 13:2:4):



ד"א לכך פרט אנשים, לפי שארז"ל (ילקו"ש פנחס תשעגכז) האנשים היו שונאים את הארץ ואמרו נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה (במדבר יד.ד) והנשים היו מחבבות הארץ ואמרו תנה לנו אחזה (שם כז.ד) וע"כ אמר הקב"ה לפי דעתי שאני רואה בעתיד היה יותר טוב לשלוח נשים המחבבות את הארץ כי לא יספרו בגנותה, אבל לך לדעתך שאתה סבור שכשרים המה ואתה סבור שהארץ חביבה עליהם תשלח אנשים וזהו שלח לך לדעתך אנשים, אבל לדעתי היה יותר טוב לשלוח נשים כאמור.



My loose / summarized translation:



The men hated the land as it says (Numbers 14:4) "Let us make a leader and return to Egypt". And the women loved the land and said, (Numbers 27:4) (As I said in the comment, this was the daughters of Tzlafhad) "Give us a portion".


Therefore, G-d told Moses that in My mind, as I see the future, it would be better to send women so that they will not speak of its detriments. But according to you (i.e. Moses), as you are of the opinion that these men are reliable, and that the land is loved by them, go and send these men. This is why the wording is "lecha" - "for you", meaning, for you (your opinion) send men, but for My opinion, you should send women.



hebrew - Why does "ateres roshi" mean "my parent"?


The phrase "עטרת ראשי" (ateres roshi == my head's crown) appears in many Hebrew texts to refer to respectable individuals. I heard in a shi'ur recently that it specifically refers to the father of the writer, and some Googling later, it seems to be used in Modern Hebrew discourse to refer to mothers as well.


The connection to respectability is clear, due simply to the meaning of the words, and possibly the phrase's appearance in parallel to "my honor" in the pasuk "כְּבוֹדִי מֵעָלַי הִפְשִׁיט וַיָּסַר עֲטֶרֶת רֹאשִׁי" (Iyov 19:9). But what is the connection to parents? It almost seems disrespectful to refer to one's parent as an object generally used to aggrandize oneself and one's own image.




Why do we always characterize a LTI system by its impulse response?


Why do we always characterize a LTI system by its impulse response and not by another response, like the step response? What does the impulse response have that is so special?




inorganic chemistry - Why does nitric acid have a different molecular structure from phosphoric and arsenic acids?


I remember that this really bugged me as an undergrad, and upon revisiting some inorganic chemistry notes I realized I still don't have a satisfactory answer for it. The structure of nitric acid, $\ce{HNO3}$, is quite different from the structure of phosphoric acid, $\ce{H3PO4}$ and arsenic acid, $\ce{H3AsO4}$:


Structures of Group 15 oxoacids



Something tells me there should be an easy, intuitive argument explaining this, perhaps something about p-orbitals being more diffuse in phosphorus and arsenic? I find it kind of difficult to analyze this as a sort of "trend", since other groups don't really seem to have well defined oxyacids for the first two or three elements.


There is no oxyacid for water, but sulphuric and selenic acids are similar in structure; there is no oxyacid for fluorine either, but the oxyacids of chlorine and bromine are also analogous. In the carbon group something kind of strange also happens, with silicic acid (I believe) not really being a well-defined compound but a plethora of different things with different relative stabilities.




home experiment - Hydrophobic sand in water





Can you please explain this experiment? Why is this happening?




history - What kind of kippah is this?


This photo of my great great grandfather was taken around 1900. He's a Lubavitch Jew from Belarus. His name is Zalman Malkin. He is from Liozna. The story of his life is here.



I was wondering if his kippah indicated a particular region, tradition, or style, or if that was just the general style of kippahs during that time period:


Black and white photo of a bearded Jew wearing a tall, round kippah with a flat top.




Saturday, September 28, 2019

parshanut torah comment - Why were the Jews punished for 40 years if the spies were the ones who were there for 40 days?


Rashi (Bemidbar 13:25) implies that the Jews were in the Sinai Desert for 40 years in response to the spies being in the Land of Israel for 40 days.


While the spies had 40 days worth of planning to sin, and thus were punished, why were the Jews punished for merely accepting the spies’ report? What do they have to do with the 40 days?




halacha - What should i do with food stuck in my mouth after bentching?


It happens to everyone sometimes. You'll be eating a sandwich (for example), bentch, and then find some food stuck in your mouth.


What should be done with this food?



Is it permissible to swallow it? If so, does it need a bracha? Must it be spat out?


What about if you discover it during bentching?




sexuality - Remedy for Desire for a Married Woman


Background:


We are all human and sometimes tend towards the evil inclination. At times we successfully fight against the inappropriate feelings, thoughts, actions, etc. At other times we don't do so well. For example, I, a Jewish man, am extremely attracted to a married Jewish women whom I work with (but not in the same office.)


The reasons for my attraction are numerous and believe it or not, it isn't only about sex appeal. I do not deny that I find her REALLY good looking, but there is a holistic element to my attraction. We communicate so well, we share many common interests, we share personal information (NOT of a sexual nature), she is intelligent and well educated, she loves children, she is a kind-hearted person who expresses empathy towards others, we understand each other's off-center sense of humor. I can go on and on. She is, however, married to a non-Jewish man by whom she has a young daughter, but she still has some connection with Judaism. Obviously (?) she is not my bersheit but in many ways I feel as if she is.


Now I assure you that I would NEVER act on my yatzer harah, but the desire is so strong at times that it causes me distress and guilt. If she were to get divorced, I'd be hitting on her in an instant. If she felt the same towards me, well Mazel Tov to both of us. That would solve part of the problem although that would not absolve me of my current sinful urges.


My question:


So I am wondering, are there any Jewish sources that offer specific actions or prayers to repent for having inappropriate desire for a married woman? In addition, are there any Jewish sources that recommend ways to avoid/suppress the feelings?


Keep in mind I am not concerned with generalized attraction towards women I come in contact with on a daily basis. That's a different story altogether (addressed in this question and this question). My concern is about having strong feelings for one particular woman.




grammar - Auxiliary verbs in Japanese


What are auxiliary verbs in Japanese language? Which verbs are auxiliary and how to tell which are auxiliaries, and which are normal?


It looks like the word です is an auxiliary verb. But why? What tells us that it has this function in sentence?


Is the word ます an auxiliary?


I apologize for silly questions.



Answer



There are two different definitions of auxiliary verb.


Auxiliary verb as the translation of 助動詞



Words like ます, (ら)れる are generally taught as "part of conjugations/forms" in most Japanese-as-a-second-language textbooks, but they are categorized as 助動詞 in Japanese monolingual dictionaries and grammar books. This word class is usually translated as auxiliary verb (or simply auxiliary). The list of 助動詞 is relatively small (see below), and you may be already familiar with most of them (as part of "forms"). Generally, 助動詞 is a mishmash of functional words that work by modifying the meaning of the preceding word. Most auxiliary verbs can conjugate, and multiple auxiliary verbs can be "stacked" to say complicated things like "negative-causative-passive". For example, 飲ませられない ("is not forced to drink") is a verb 飲む followed by three auxiliary verbs (causative させる, passive られる and negative ない). Despite its name, a 助動詞 does not necessarily conjugate like a verb; for example たい conjugate like an i-adjective.


List of Japanese 助動詞



  • (さ)せる for causation

  • (ら)れる for passive voice, ability, etc

  • ない・ぬ・ん for negation

  • (よ)う for volition

  • まい for negative inference

  • たい・たがる for desire

  • た/だ for past tense


  • ようだ for similarity

  • そうだ for hearsay

  • らしい for hearsay, behavior

  • だ・です for predication/politeness (aka copula)

  • ます for politeness

  • やがる for disdain

  • べし for requirement/certainty

  • ...Plus some rare archaic auxiliary verbs and dialectal forms. See this Wikipedia article (in Japanese) for the full list.


Auxiliary verb as the translation of 補助動詞



Words like (~て)いる, (~て)みる, (~て)おく are usually called subsidiary verbs (補助動詞), but some people like to call them auxiliary verbs. For details, please see: What is a subsidiary verb?




Regarding です/ます, yes, they are categorized as 助動詞 in Japanese monolingual dictionaries. But I think most beginner Japanese-as-a-second-language textbooks usually regard です as a (polite) copula and ます as a politeness marker.


If you are a beginner, you may be overwhelmed by the number of "forms" in Japanese verbs, but once you reach an intermediate level and start using learning materials written in Japanese, you may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of 助動詞. See also: Why Japanese verb has so many forms?


Bonds between metals and non-metals


My teacher in college says that bonds between metals and nonmetals are ionic.


$ \ce{Metal - Metal} $ $\Rightarrow$ Metalic bond


$\ce{Non metal - Non metal}$ $\Rightarrow$ Covalent bond


I have to write about $\ce{CuCl2}$, and found in Wikipedia that if you subtract electronegativity you get what bond it is:


$$\chi (\ce{Cl}) = 3.16, \quad \chi (\ce{Cu}) = 1.90$$


$$\chi = 3.16 - 1.90 = 1.26$$




$\chi < 0.4 \Rightarrow$ covalent non-polar


$0.4 < \chi < 1.7 \Rightarrow$ covalent polar



$\chi > 1.7 \Rightarrow$ ionic




So it should be really a covalent bond. Which one is correct?



Answer



You should be careful with simple associations such as "metal + non-metal = ionic bond". These tend to throw out the idea of understanding the chemistry involved in favour of rote memorization. Note for example that mixing caesium metal with gold will produce a salt instead of an alloy, caesium auride ($\ce{Cs^+ Au^{-}}$). Mixing barium metal and platinum can also produce salts, though their structures are somewhat more complex. One can also argue that there is significant ionic character in solid xenon difluoride, even though both atoms are non-metals.


The idea of using electronegativity to determine covalent/ionic character is also meant as a helpful guide, not as a strict rule with black-and-white limits. Firstly, all bonds have both ionic and covalent character; both concepts are an oversimplification, and in reality it is more correct to say that a bond has a certain contribution from each type of bonding. This means there is a smooth transition from compounds with mostly ionic character and those with mostly covalent character. Also, the inequalities you mention rely on Pauling electronegativities. Electronegativity is surprisingly still a hotly debated topic, as we continue to search more general, more fundamental and more precise ways of defining it. Pauling electronegativities are based on empirical thermodynamic data regarding bond energies after applying a certain equation that was "picked", not derived from scratch. The values are particularly poorly defined for transition elements, such as the $\ce{Cu}$ in your problem. You get some not-so-easy to explain situations, like $\ce{HF}$ as a gas that is a borderline ionic compound.


Finally, in light of these comments, the answer to your question is that bonding in $\ce{CuCl_2}$ (I'm pretty sure that's what you actually meant to write) has intermediate characteristics between a purely ionic and a polar covalent bond, with similar contributions (though pinpointing which is highest sounds like an exercise in futility). A good way to study it more in depth is to analyze Fajans' rules. After a little self-calibration, you can get a good feel for the degree of ionicity and covalency of a compound. Some further but less certain evidence (lots of caveats!) for the intermediate character of $\ce{CuCl_2}$ can be found by looking at the substances' melting and boiling points ($\pu{498°C}$ and $\pu{993°C}$ [decomposition], respectively, according to Wikipedia). They are both quite high compared to substances with polar covalent bonds (dimethylformamide boils at around $\pu{150°C}$), but rather low compared to substances with very ionic bonds ($\ce{NaCl}$ boils over $\pu{1400°C}$).


passover seder hagada - Why is counting the omer not in all haggadot?


We count the first day of the omer on the night of the second seder, yet some prominent, traditional haggadot do not include the bracha for counting (e.g., ArtScroll, Koren, Steinsaltz). Why not?




hashkafah philosophy - If the Oral Torah is Divine, why are there arguments?




Possible Duplicate:

Why don’t we just follow the shittah of Moshe Rabeinu?



If the Oral Torah is Divine, how are there arguments in the Mishnah and Gemara?


(I have heard this question asked several times and I wish to be equipped properly to answer it.)




social convention - Responding to "that's not a Jewish name"



My ancestry is not eastern-European, and sometimes when I meet people in a Jewish setting and we introduce ourselves, I'm met with "that's not a Jewish name" (referring to my last name, mostly). I don't think the person saying this means to challenge me; it's just an observation. But it seems to call for a reply, and I'm never sure what to say. "There are Jews in Italy", while true, feels a little dismissive, but the details of my family background really aren't relevant most of the time. I understand that Miss Manners would call for something like "why does that concern you?", but that doesn't feel like an appropriate Jewish response to me somehow.


In a casual encounter with a stranger who does not appear to be trolling, how should one respond to this kind of statement? Is there any factor in one's background that, if present, would affect how one responds -- does the answer change if you're the product of an intermarriage, the descendant of a convert, a convert yourself, the descendant of crypto-Jews (marranos), etc?


(No, I'm not going to change my name to dodge this problem.)




word choice - Why is it お[腹]{なか}が[空]{す}いた but [腹]{は ら}[減]{へ}った?


Is there any particular reason why the noun おなか goes with verb すく while the noun はら goes with the verb へる? Would it be weird if I use おなかへった or はらすいた?



While on the same topic, does the 'starving' onomatopoeia ペコペコ go with both おなか and はら?



Answer



Besides the phrases being idiomatic (fixed), there is a slight difference in the meaning of these words.


お腹 (onaka) means stomach, although it can also mean belly
腹 (hara) means belly

You can also tell this from the fact that the pronunciation for お腹 (onaka) is related to (naka) 'inside', which implicates stomach. Therefore, even with the same predicate, they mean different things:


お腹が痛い 'my stomach hurts' means stomach ache caused by eating too much or poisoned food
腹が痛い 'my belly hurts' means laughing to death, (in addition to the meaning above)


In the case in the question, 空く 'become empty' goes well with stomach rather than belly. へる 'lose volume' goes well with belly rather than with stomach (stomach is just a wall).


parshanut torah comment - Who killed Shaul?



Sh'muel 31:3–5:



וַתִּכְבַּד הַמִּלְחָמָה אֶל שָׁאוּל…. וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו שְׁלֹף חַרְבְּךָ וְדָקְרֵנִי בָהּ… וְלֹא אָבָה נֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו כִּי יָרֵא מְאֹד וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ. וַיַּרְא נֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו כִּי מֵת שָׁאוּל וַיִּפֹּל גַּם הוּא עַל חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּמָת עִמּוֹ.‏



As literal a translation as feasible:



The battle was heavy against Shaul…. Shaul said to his arms-bearer "unsheathe your sword and pierce me with it…"; and his arms-bearer did not wish to, for he is much afraid. Shaul took the sword and fell upon it. His arms-bearer saw that Shaul dies, and he fell, he too, on his sword and died with him.



In Sh'muel 1, someone comes to David with news. He tells him (in verses 6–10):




נִקְרֹא נִקְרֵיתִי בְּהַר הַגִּלְבֹּעַ וְהִנֵּה שָׁאוּל נִשְׁעָן עַל חֲנִיתוֹ…. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי עֲמָד נָא עָלַי וּמֹתְתֵנִי כִּי אֲחָזַנִי הַשָּׁבָץ כִּי כָל עוֹד נַפְשִׁי בִּי. וָאֶעֱמֹד עָלָיו וַאֲמֹתְתֵהוּ כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא יִחְיֶה אַחֲרֵי נִפְלוֹ….‏



As literal a translation as feasible:



I happened upon the Gilboa Mountain and, lo, Shaul leaned on his spear…. He said to me, "stand, please, over me and kill me, for the tremor has grabbed me, for all yet my soul in me". I stood over him and killed him, for I knew that he will not live after his falling….



Who killed Shaul? Was the reporter simply lying?



Answer



Radak explains "His arms-bearer saw that Shaul dies" with




i.e., close to death… but he did not die yet until the [reporter] killed him….



Alternatively, Radak continues,



it's possible the [reporter] lied: he didn't kill him but found him dead after [Shaul] had fallen on his sword. He said [he'd killed Shaul] to appeal to David….



Ralbag (Ⅰ Sh'muel 31:4 and Ⅱ Sh'muel 1:6) offers the latter explanation also, but prefers the former, which he fleshes out:



Shaul did not die in falling on his sword, and this [reporter] finished the job, killing him.… "And lo, Shaul leaned on his spear" seems to mean that after he fell on his spear and saw that it didn't pierce him, Shaul leaned on it forcefully to complete the piercing; when he saw he couldn't do it, he then asked the [reporter] to kill him.




(Abarbanel (to Ⅱ Sh'muel 1:9) says similar to the last.)


grammar - More complex sentences - When to use は? When to use が?



I know the basics about the difference in the usage between は and が. Nevertheless, when it comes to more complex sentences, I encounter difficulties that I want to explain on base of some examples. Maybe, somebody can briefly confirm whether my understanding is correct.





  1. Looking at the X-ray image, it is apparent that the package of the component described above cracked.


    X線写真によると、前述の部品、パッケージが亀裂が生じたことが明らかです。



    I think it is clear that "前述の部品" is the topic and can or should be marked with "は".






  2. It is no doubt that the package of the component described above cracked.


    前述の部品パッケージが亀裂が生じたことは疑いようがありません。



    Although the constructions of both sentences are very similar, "疑いようがありません" must be preceded by "ことは" and "前述の部品" cannot be the topic and hence becomes a genitive.





  3. Assuming that the temperature of the device described above excessively increased, the failure picture can be explained.


    前述の部品過度な温度上昇となっていったという仮定のもとで、不具合品の写真は、真実味が出てきます。




    I am sure that "前述の部品" cannot be marked with "は" but can anybody explain me why? Can the part of the sentence preceding "仮定" be regarded as relative clause where "は" is not permitted at all?


    Is this sentence correct?



    前述の部品過度な温度上昇となっていったと仮定すると、不具合品の写真は、真実味が出てきます。






  4. It is reasonable to think that the improvement measure described above guarantees protection for the components.



    前述の改選策本部品用保護を保証していると考えることは、妥当なように思われます。



    "前述の改選策" cannot be marked with "は" because this could run counter to the "と考えることは".




I highly appreciate your collaboration. This "は" versus "が" topic is my main concern.




Friday, September 27, 2019

notation - Significant figures used to imply stated error?


The question reads, " express each of the following quantities using significant figures to imply the stated error".


a)$2.3 \pm 0.001$


b)$1.989 \pm 0.0003$


I think the first one is 2.300 because the zero in the thousands place implies an error of $\pm 0.001$ but how do I use sig figs to imply an error of $\pm 0.0003$?



Answer



The use of significant figures always implies some error, that is not explicitly stated. It is therefore irrelevant how big this error is. I merely states that the last digit is rounded.



In the first case the quantity is given as $2.3\pm0.001$, which gives you the interval $(2.301;2.999)$, which is expressed as $2.300$ in significant figures.


The same applies to the second quantity, which is given as $1.989\pm0.0003$, which in turn gives you the interval $(1.9893;1.9887)$, which is expressed as $1.9890$.


bandpass - Filtering Frequency Bands Out of a Signal


Let's say I have a 2 second data set taken at 220Hz sample rate and I would like to filter out the frequency bands associated with the EEG Spectrum: $$\begin{align} \Delta:& [1,3]\text{ Hz}\\ \theta:& [4,7]\text{ Hz}\\ \alpha_1:& [8,9]\text{ Hz}\\ \alpha_2:& [10,12]\text{ Hz}\\ \beta_1:& [13,17]\text{ Hz}\\ \beta_2:& [18,30]\text{ Hz}\\ \gamma_1:& [31,40]\text{ Hz}\\ \gamma_2:& [41,50]\text{ Hz} \end{align} $$ What would be the most simple approach to do this ?




number - How did Avrohom learn that nine doesn't work?


The Midrash says (Bereshis Rabbah 49:13 quoted in Rashi Genesis 18:32) that Abraham stopped asking HaShem to save Sodom in the merit of less than 10 people because Noah and his family who were 8 people weren't able to save the world. The question is that from Noah we only see that 8 doesn't work, but not that anything less than 10 doesn't work. So why didn't Avraham daven for the merit of nine people?



Answer



The Chumash Shai LeMorah brings the Be'er Mayim Chaim (A commentary on Rashi written by the Maharal of Prague's brother, R' Chaim of Friedberg) says that once G-d agreed to save the 5 cities if there were 45 righteous people, Avraham understood that G-d was willing to be complete the quorum in order to save the city. (as Rashi 18:28 explains).


Once Avraham understood this, when he asked G-d to spare 3 cities in the merit of 30 righteous people (2 for the sake of 20, etc.) (Rashi 18:29), he was asking G-d to save 3 cities even if there were only 27 righteous individuals, relying on G-d to complete the quorum in each of the 3 cities.


So when Avraham was asking G-d to save 1 city if there were 10 righteous people to be found, he was asking G-d to save the city even if there were only 9 righteous people in the city, with G-d Himself counted as the 10th. (Of course, if there would be 10 without counting G-d, that would work too)


Now we can understand why Rashi jumps from 10 people to 8 people, since asking 10 was also asking 9. This also clarifies why Avraham went from 50 to 45, but went from 40 to 30 to 20 to 10, since 40 includes 36, etc.


The impossibility of 100% ionic bond


Recently, I read the definition of oxidation state on Wikipedia. It read that a 100% ionic bond is impossible. So what does a 75% ionic and 25% covalent bond mean at all?




death - Why is giluey arayos one of the big 3?


I get why murder and idol worship are things you have to give your life up for. But why is giluy arayos - sexual sin so fundamental as to require a person to give up one's life? I'm looking for a taamei hamitzvot perspective, not just the formal derivation of the law.



Answer



R' Hirsch notes that the Big Three are echoed in the laws for the Altar that God gives as an "epilogue" to the Assembly at Sinai in Exodus 20:19-23:




  • Whatever v. 20 comes to prohibit, (according to the Midrash cited by Rashi, various misuses of angelic icons are included) it clearly echoes idol worship.





  • Not making the Altar of cut stones (v. 22) "lest you wield your sword upon it and desecrate it" echoes murder.




  • Not ascending steps to the Altar (v. 23) "so that your nakedness shall not be exposed upon it" echoes immorality (and even uses a form of the term "gilui 'arayot").




He says that the point of these laws is to tell us that the central symbol of our service of God, the Altar, has to represent the fundamentals of our actual service - our adherence to the three fundamental laws. We therefore have to, through the laws given here, "expel the very last trace" of the fundamental sins from the Altar, just as we do so from our actual lives.


He formulates the Big Three as "the culmination of sin against God, of sin against one's fellow man, and of sin against oneself."


So, how does sexual immorality constitute "the culmination of sin against oneself"?


I think R' Hirsch touches on this in many places, but I found it set out pretty clearly in his commentary to Leviticus 18:6, at the beginning of a list of couplings particularly prohibited to Jews:




Immediately when God led the first woman to the first man for their union to be a matter for the exercise of their own moral free will, in contrast to the blind physical urge of animal life, and He erected the pillars of the whole development of the human race, ... in His first proclamation for moral human marriage: - "'על כן יעזב וגו" [that a man must leave his family to marry - IM], ... He indicated that it was not within the narrow circle of blood relationship that the human male is to seek his mate if the morally high purpose of human marriage is to be reached. This is His למינו-Law ["according to its species" i.e. natural law with respect to propagation of species - IM] for the human race, which in the sphere of plant and animal sexes is carried out immutably by the almighty power of His Word at their creation, but which His one creature with moral free will, His Adam, His Man, is to accept from His Mouth to carry it out with his moral free will.



(my bracketed comments where indicated)


To our purpose, I think what he's saying is that sexual morality is the paradigm of human adherence to God's Law through choice. A person who violates this Law turns his back on his mission as a human being, just as an apple tree that somehow decided to produce grapes instead would be turning its back on its mission as an apple tree.


free will bechira - What makes the choice to do good or evil?


I understand some of bechira but this has always puzzled me: If we are equally inclined to do good or evil, what is it that makes the final choice?



Answer




Not so much an answer as much as why I think it's impossible to give you one:


Free Will lives in a region between algorithm and randomness. (See Metahalakhah, by R/Dr Moshe Koppel, ch. 2-3, for an actual information theory treatment of this topic.) If our decisions were an algorithm, then we'd be robots, with a given history of inputs causing our decisions inevitably. No freedom. If we were random, our "decisions" would be mere rolls of the dice, and not really caused by anything within us either. No will. Nor would we be morally accountable for anything we did in either case -- the algorithm can't be blamed for following its programming, and the die cannot be blamed for which way it falls.


But what this means is that Free Will is also ineffable. If we could pin what we're doing down into words, it would mean that Free Will is an algorithm. If we would claim there is nothing needing description, we would be reducing decision-making to randomness -- the decision has no cause.


I think this is what led @Loewian and @user3714808 to their rather terse answers. We all know what Free Will is, we just can't describe it. All we can say is, "Your free will is the factor that determines the final outcome."


Thursday, September 26, 2019

grammar - What's the difference between こそ and さえ in 「忙しくて昼ご はんを食べる時間___ない」


I don't know which to choose:



忙しくて昼ごはんを食べる時間さえない




or



忙しくて昼ごはんを食べる時間こそない



The explanation in my textbook is given in such a way that I can't understand the difference:


It says こそ "expresses emphasis" and for さえ it gives an example "Even children know that" with no additional elaboration and that example is also, I think, emphasis, so how to understand?



Answer



The main difference is that こそ is used to single out something as a primary "example" of something. It is usually only used to emphasize something "positive". It most often will replace は to add the emphasis. It's not a direct translation, but it might help to think of it in term of something like "especially" or "particularly".





  • 音楽こそ命だ → Music is life

  • これこそ待っていたものです → This is what I've been waiting for (more than anything else)!

  • こそチャンスなんだ! → Now (more than any other time) is our chance!

  • 人間関係にこそ人生の価値がある → It's (particularly/especially) in relationships that one's life has value!



さえ singles out an "extreme", implying that the statement obviously applies to other examples. It most often carries a negative connotation, but not always. It is usually replacing も or を in the sentence, and can be thought of as "even". Actually, I believe every occurrence of さえ can be replaced by も, but not necessarily the other way around. Here are some of my examples from another さえ post that you can refer to for more info:





  • 先週の病気は本当に辛【つら】かった。水さえ飲めなかった。 → "My illness last week was really bad. I couldn't even drink water!" → When one is sick, you expect them not to be able to drink alcohol, soda, etc. But water should be OK for most people. Even water, the most basic thing was intolerable for this person.

  • えりこは親友の花子にさえ知らせずに外国へ旅立った。 → "Eriko left on a trip to a foreign country without telling even her best friend Hanako." → You'd expect her to not tell her co-workers, acquaintances, etc. But best friends usually tell each other everything, and she didn't tell even her.

  • 山の上には夏でさえ雪が残っている。 → "Even if it's summer, there is snow left on the top of the mountain." → You expect snow to be on top of a mountain in winter, and some leftover in the spring. But usually by summer it's all gone, but for this mountain the snow remains even then.



So for your sentence, さえ is the correct choice. It sounds ungrammatical to me that have こそ in there. But regardless, さえ is needed for the overall meaning.




  • 忙しくて昼ごはんを食べる時間さえない → I'm so busy, I don't even have time to eat lunch → If you're busy, of course you don't have time to go shopping, to the movies, etc. But this person is so busy, there's not even enough time for them to eat. Of course, this may be an exaggeration, but it still emphasizes just how busy they are.

  • それが子供にさえ分かる常識です → That's such common sense that even children know it.




organic chemistry - Are aromatic amines or amides less basic?


When the lone pair of an amino group $\ce{R-NH2}$ is involved in resonance, its basicity decreases. But, between conjugation with carbonyl group $\ce{R}=\ce{R'CO}$ or resonance with benzene $\ce{R} = \ce{Ph}$, which one will reduce the basicity of amino group to a greater extent?



Answer



Measures for acid and base strength


First, you need to be clear about 'strong' and 'weak' acids. In order to measure the strength of an acid relative to water and find out how effective a proton donor it is, you must look at the equilibrium constant for the reaction



\begin{equation} \ce{HA (aq) + H2O(l) <=> H3O+ (aq) + A- (aq)} \end{equation}


The position of equilibrium is measured by the equilibrium constant for this reaction $K_{\text{eq}}$.


\begin{equation} K_{\text{eq}} = \frac{[\ce{H3O+}][\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{H2O}][\ce{HA}]} \end{equation}


The concentration of water remains essentially constant (at $55.56 \, \text{mol} \, \text{dm}^{–3}$) with dilute solutions of acids wherever the equilibrium may be and a new equilibrium constant, $K_{\text{a}}$, is defined and called the acidity constant.


\begin{equation} K_{\text{a}} = \frac{[\ce{H3O+}][\ce{A-}]}{[\ce{HA}]} \end{equation}


Like $\text{pH}$, this is also expressed in a logarithmic form, $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$.


\begin{equation} \text{p}K_{\text{a}} = -\log (K_{\text{a}}) \end{equation}


Because of the minus sign in this definition, the lower the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$, the larger the equilibrium constant, $K_{\text{a}}$, is and hence the stronger the acid. The $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ of the acid is the $\text{pH}$ where it is exactly half dissociated. At $\text{pH}$s above the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$, the acid $\ce{HA}$ exists as $\ce{A^{–}}$ in water; at $\text{pH}$s below the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$, it exists as undissociated $\ce{HA}$.


An acid's $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ depends on the stability of its conjugate base. $\ce{HCl}$ is a much stronger acid than acetic acid: the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ of $\ce{HCl}$ is around $–7$ compared to $4.76$ for acetic acid. This tells you that in solution $K_{\text{a}}$ for hydrogen chloride is $10^{7} \, \text{mol} \, \text{dm}^{–3}$ whilst for acetic acid it is only $10^{–4.76} = 1.74 \cdot 10^{–5} \, \text{mol} \, \text{dm}^{–3}$. But, why are the equilibria so different? Why does hydrogen chloride fully dissociate but acetic acid do so only partially?


\begin{equation} \ce{HCl (aq) + H2O (l) <=>> H3O+ (aq) + Cl- (aq)} \quad \qquad \qquad K_{\text{a}} = 10^{7} \, \text{mol} \, \text{dm}^{–3} \\ \ce{CH3COOH (aq) + H2O (l) <<=> H3O+ (aq) + CH3COO- (aq)} \qquad K_{\text{a}} = 1.74 \cdot 10^{–5} \, \text{mol} \, \text{dm}^{–3} \\ \end{equation}



The answer must have something to do with the conjugate base $\ce{A^{–}}$ of each acid $\ce{HA}$, since this is the only thing that varies from one acid to another. In both the equilibria above, water acts as a base by accepting a proton from the acid. For the hydrochloric acid equilibrium in the reverse direction, the chloride ion is not a strong enough base to deprotonate the hydronium ion. Acetate, on the other hand, is easily protonated by $\ce{H3O+}$ to give neutral acetic acid, which means that acetate must be a stronger base than chloride ion. A nice thing to remember:



  • The stronger the acid $\ce{HA}$, the weaker its conjugate base, $\ce{A^{–}}$

  • The stronger the base $\ce{A^{–}}$, the weaker its conjugate acid $\ce{AH}$


So, the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ is a good measure for the strength of an acid: the lower the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ the stronger the acid.


But what about bases? To say something about the strength of a base it is convenient to take the following viewpoint: to what extent does a protonated base want to keep its proton or in other words: how big is the acid strength of its conjugate acid? For example if you want to know which is the stronger base - say, formate anion or acetylide anion - you look up the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$s for their conjugate acids. You find that the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ for formic acid ($\ce{HCO2H}$) is $3.7$, whilst the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ for acetylene is around $25$. This means that acetylene is much more reluctant to part with its proton, that is, acetylide is much more basic than formate. This is all very well for anions - you simply look up the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ value for the neutral conjugate acid, but what if you want to know the basicity of ammonia? If you look up the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ for ammonia you find a value around $33$ but this is the value for deprotonating neutral ammonia to give the amide ion, $\ce{NH2^{–}}$. If you want to know the basicity of ammonia, you must look up the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ of its conjugate acid, the ammonium cation, $\ce{NH4+}$, protonated ammonia. Its $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ is $9.24$ which means that ammonia is a weaker base than hydroxide - the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ for water (the conjugate acid of hydroxide) is $15.74$. In conclusion: the higher the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ of the conjugate acid the stronger the base.


The answer to your question


The $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ of the conjugate acid of aniline is $4.6$. So, since this value is much lower than the $9.24$ you had for ammonia, it is much less basic than ammonia, as is expected since the lone pair of aniline is delocalized into the phenyl ring. But for amides the $\text{p}K_{\text{a}}$ values of the conjugate acid are typically smaller than $0$, so an amide is much less basic than aniline. This is to be expected because the carbonyl group contains an electronegative oxygen atom and thus has a lower lying LUMO than the phenyl ring which can interact more efficiently with the nitrogen's lone pair, thus spreading the negative charge more evenly among the conjugated groups and leading to a higher stabilization of the molecule.


How to express vague amounts of time?



I'm having trouble figuring out how to express vague amounts of time in Japanese, such as some number of months or some number of hours.


I want to use this in a context where the specific number is neither important nor known, but the factor of time passing/occurring is important. For example:



Some hours later, he finished the test.


Traveling to and staying in another country requires some number of months free.




Answer



Two constructions spring to mind here.


数{すう} can be used in place of a specific number, followed by a counter, to mean "some" / "a few" / "several" (it doesn't really make a distinction in this respect...).




数時間後、彼は試験を終わった。



This can be used in ways you might not expect:



数十秒 some tens of seconds
十数秒 ten-(and-some)-odd seconds (between 10 and 19)
二十数年 twenty-(and-some)-odd years



Alternatively, you can use 何 + counter + か.




他の国に滞在するなら、[何ヶ月]{なんかげつ}かは開いておかなければなりません。



The same kind of uses seen above for 数 also apply to 何.


halacha - May my wife wear my jacket to keep warm?


The Sefer HaChinuch #564 writes that it’s forbidden for a woman to wear men’s clothing.




  1. If it’s cold outside, is a woman allowed to wear a man’s coat to keep warm?





  2. If #1 is a problem, are any distinctions made that would allow a woman to wear her husband’s coat while her husband is with her?





Answer



From Rav Aviner's tshuvot (text)



Wearing Wife's Jacket in the Cold


Q: Is it permissible for a husband to wear his wife's jacket if he is cold, or is it forbidden on account of "Lo Yilbash" (the prohibition of cross-dressing)? And what about visa-versa?


A: It is permissible, since the purpose is not to wear it but simply to warm up (Shut Yabia Omer 6:14).




parshanut torah comment - Why did Pharaoh's officers wait for three whole days before returning to inform him? Rashi Shemos 14 (5)


The Torah tells us Shemos 14 (5)



It was reported to Pharaoh that the people had fled; and Pharaoh and his servants had a change of heart toward the people, and they said, What is this that we have done, that we have released Israel from serving us?




And Rashi comments



It was reported to Pharaoh: He [Pharaoh] sent officers with them, and as soon as the three days they [the Israelites] had set to go [into the desert] and return had elapsed, and they [the officers] saw that they were not returning to Egypt, they came and informed Pharaoh on the fourth day.



Why did the officers wait for the whole three days to elapse? It would take the Bnei Yisroel some time to return to Egypt if that had been their intention. The officers could have returned once it was clear that Bnei Yisroel would not arrive back before the three days had elapsed.




equilibrium - Strong and Weak Acids/Bases


I'm so confused... $\ce{HClO}$ is a weak acid. then why is its conjugate base, $\ce{ClO-}$, a weak base in water? shouldn't they be inversely proportional? shouldn't $\ce{ClO-}$, be a strong base?


If $\ce{HClO}$ is a weak acid, that means it does not readily give up a proton and has a strong pull on them. So when it becomes a conjugate base, $\ce{ClO-}$, shouldn't it readily take protons and therefore be a strong base in water?


ALSO, when an acid is dissolved in water, and some of that acid dissociates into $\ce{H3O+}$, is the Kw of water negligible and you only consider the Ka when finding pH? But that confuses me because I thought you use 14, the exponent of Kw when finding pH.




Wednesday, September 25, 2019

minhag - Haftora for a wedding



ונוהגין להפטיר בחתונה שוש אשיש.‏



The Rama above (from OC 428) says that in his area the custom was to read a special haftora if a groom was present in the synagogue.


Has anyone seen this minhag or know why it seems to have largely died out?




avodah zarah - Anger is a form of idolatry


I recall reading once that when one is hit with a stick that one does not get angry at the stick. This lesson went on to explain that because everything is G-d's will that the man who cause you harm is like the stick. He would not be able to harm you if it was not G-d's will. Though the culprit has freewill and is responsible, anger at what happen to you is substituting your will for that of G-d and thus a form of idol worship. I thought this came from the Baal Shem Tov but cannot find it.




tznius modesty - Getting dressed in the bathroom



I heard an interesting, but confusing, chumrah observed by Rabbi Pesach Levi of Lakewood. He said one should get dressed in one's bathroom because one should not appear naked in front of one's personal angel, and because angels do not accompany a Jew into the bathroom. That made me wonder whether we should be concerned about being modest before our angels when we go to the mikvah. Does anyone know the source for this opinion and can they explain how it might apply to the mikvah?




product recommendation - Record of Disputation of Paris


Is the record of the disputation of Paris that took place in 1240, I believe called sefer havikuach, available for free online?



Answer



In addition to the links provided in J.C. Salomon's answer, there is an HTML page with a very readable typed and color coded version of ויכוח רבנו יחיאל מפריס on the Daat website here.


mitzvah - Murder in Eretz Yisrael


The Gemara in Yoma (85a) argues that murder is more chamur than chilul Shabbos because it "contaminates the land and drives away the Shechina"



ושפיכות דמים מטמא את הארץ וגורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל



This is based on the pasuk in Bamidbar 35:33-34 which says:



ולא־תחניפו את־הארץ אשר אתם בה כי הדם הוא יחניף את־הארץ ולארץ לא־יכפר לדם אשר שפך־בה כי־אם בדם שפכו



ולא תטמא את־הארץ אשר אתם ישבים בה אשר אני שכן בתוכה כי אני יהוה שכן בתוך בני ישראל



Does this mean that commiting murder within Eretz Yisrael is even more chamur than doing so outside the Land?


Even if we argue that the driving away of the Shechina applies to Jews everywhere, the contamination of the Land appears to be Eretz Yisrael specific.




rabbis - List of Techelet Wearers



I was looking online for a list of people famous for deciding or influencing halacha, who currently wear Ptil Techelet Techelet ("Murex") However I could not find one.


Does such a list exist? If not, could someone provide a list here?


Update:


It seems that this page here "might" have a list of "famous" people who wear techelet, but I can't tell exactly. Certainly some of the rabbis in the halacha section say that you don't have to wear techelet, and they themselves don't. tekhelet.com/pub.htm However, there is too much nuance there for me to get a list from it, easily.




Answer



An incomplete list:



Anyone feel free to add.


minhag - Standing up at the Chuppa when the Kallah passes by



Last night I was at a wedding, and when I stood up as the bride was passing by on the way to the Chuppa, a fellow in all seriousness told me "It is not proper and a lack of Tzniyus to stand up for the bride". I told him that I am certain that there is a valid source for doing so as we see that it is a Minhag Yisroel that people stand up when the bride passes by. What is the source?



Answer



See Halachically Speaking (Volume 4, Issue 12, Page 8) where the author brings that many poskim [see footnote 108 for names] actually say to stand the entire Chuppah. (One reason given is because the Chosson is doing a Mitzvah, so we stand in his honor). Common custom however, is not like that.


He then goes on to say:



It is customary to stand when the chosson and kallah walk down the aisle. Some say this is out of respect for the chosson and kallah.



He brings Knesses Hagedolah E.H. 62[:2] as a source for that last reason [though the Knesses Hagedolah is referring to standing for the Chuppah Berachos].


So there you have it: a source.


grammar - Meaning of noun + だったりする



すごく背が低いけれど、いつも堂々とした態度で、颯爽とした雰囲気がある。



そして――‥‥彼女は僕の彼女だったりする。



What exactly is the meaning of "だったりする" here? I've read in A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar by Seiichi Makino that when たり is used with adjectives and nouns, it means "sometimes". Accordingly, when I first read the above line, I understood the part in question as "She is sometimes my girlfriend(and sometimes not)". Is that the correct interpretation? From context, it doesn't feel like it is so. Is there another way of understanding "だったりする"?




physical chemistry - Can we define a new unit instead of specific heat that is constant with temperature rise?


Specific heat plays an important role in calculating energy and thus, heat, enthalpy and etc.
But as I sighted the definition for calorie, I was surprised.




A calorie is the amount of heat needed to alter the temperature of 1 gram of 14.5 °C water to 15.5 °C water in the pressure of one atmosphere.



Though the unit was redefined later, the question remained still. Why were there those temperatures? It was just then that I realized specific heat capacity varies with temperature differences and it is due to vibration movements of matter and internal energy ....
Two questions: Can there be a unit which is constant with temperature alterations that can be used instead of S.heat capacity? If so, why isn't it replacing SHC?
The resource for the quote
The resource for the reason of the increase that happens to SHC with temperature rise



Answer



There isn't a simple redefinition that would work in all cases, and this is probably why nobody does this. Of course, you COULD define such a unit for a given system by defining it as a function of temperature, but it would be applicable only to the specific system.


As you noted, the physics behind the temperature dependence of a material's heat capacity lies in the quantum states which become available for excitation at different energies. Consider an insulator which stores heat primarily in the lattice vibrations. As you increase the temperature, more vibrational modes are accessible. This is often described using the Debye model which gives the heat capacity as such:



$C_V = k(\frac{T}{\theta})^3$


where $C_V$ is the heat capacity, $k$ is a constant, $T$ is the temperature in Kelvin, and $\theta$ is a constant pertinent to a specific solid.[1]


However, a metal can also store a significant amount of heat in the motions of electrons since conduction electrons are not bound to specific sites. Heat capacity for the electron 'gas' is often described like this:


$C_V' = k' \frac{T}{\theta'}$


where $C_V' \neq C_V$, $k' \neq k$ and $\theta' \neq \theta$.[2] Depending on $\theta$ and $\theta'$ for a given material, at low temperatures (often cryogenic) the electron contribution can be the dominant mode of storing heat in the solid. Thus, if you chose a unit which was sensible for an insulator, it wouldn't apply to a conductor (and vice versa).


Even within a specific material, the heat capacity on either side of a phase transition is often different since the phase transition has changed the quantum states available in the material. Therefore, your new unit would become discontinuous at phase transitions and would need a different mathematical expression for each segment of the heat capacity function, not to mention a different parameterization for each material. Hence, no real gain.


[1] See Kittel, Kroemer, Thermal Physics Second Edition; W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1980, p. 106, eq. 47b


[2] See Kittel, Kroemer, Thermal Physics Second Edition; W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1980, p. 193, eq. 37. Note that folks don't actually use the symbol $\theta'$ in this case, but choosing so makes the explanation above clearer.


physical chemistry - Prove that a 10-Degree Temperature Increase Doubles the Rate Constant (k), when the Activation Energy is Approximately 50 kJ/mol


I read that increasing the temperature by $10~^\circ\mathrm C$ will double the rate constant ($k$), when the activation energy for the reaction is relatively close to $50~\mathrm{kJ/mol}$.


However, no matter how hard I try to wrap my head around it (through graphical examples that require plotting the natural logarithm of $k$ vs the inverse of temperature), I just can't grasp this so called "rule of thumb".


As a result, I tried proving this statement through mathematical expressions:


(Note that the activation energy was evaluated for $50\,000$ because it needs to be expressed in $\mathrm{J/mol}$ to be used in Arrhenius' equation)


Prove that...



A rise of temperature of $10\ \mathrm{^\circ C}$ will double the rate constant, when the activation energy for the reaction is approximately $50\ \mathrm{kJ/mol}$.




Proof starts here -----------------------------


For: $\Delta T = T_2 - T_1$ ($T_2$ is the final temperature, and $T_1$ the initial temperature)


When: $\Delta T = 10 \rightarrow T_2 - T_1 = 10$


It follows that: The ratio between $k_2$ (at $T_2$) and $k_1$ (at $T_1$) will equal $2$, owing to the doubling of the rate constant ($k$):


$$ {k_2\over k_1} = 2 $$


Employing Arrhenius' equation:


$$ {k_2\over k_1} = {A\mathrm e^{\left({-E_\mathrm a\over RT_2}\right)}\over A\mathrm e^{\left({-E_\mathrm a\over RT_1}\right)}} = \mathrm e^{\left[{-E_\mathrm a\over R}\left({1\over T_2} – {1\over T_1}\right)\right]} = 2 $$


Or simply:


$$ {k_2\over k_1} = \exp{\!\left({-E_\mathrm a\over R} \cdot \Delta{1\over T} \right)} = 2 $$


So:



$$ \exp{\!\left({-E_\mathrm a\over R} \cdot \Delta{1\over T} \right)} = 2 $$


This might be the part where I messed up -------------------------


$\Delta{1\over T}$ can be set in terms of $\Delta T$:


$$ \Delta{1\over T} = \left({1\over T_2}-{1\over T_1}\right) = \left({T_1\over T_1T_2}-{T_2\over T_1T_2}\right) = \left({T_1-T_2\over T_1T_2}\right) = \left({-\Delta T\over T_1T_2}\right) $$


Since Arrhenius' equation above holds true for $\Delta T = 10$ ...


And since $\Delta{1\over T}$ can be expressed as $-\Delta T \over T_1T_2$ ...


Then, the rate constant ($k$) will double when:


$$ \Delta{1\over T} = {-10\over T_1T_2} $$


Substituting into Arrhenius' equation:


$$ \exp{\!\left({-E_\mathrm a\over R}\cdot{-10\over T_1T_2}\right)} = 2 $$



Simplifying:


$$ \begin{align} \exp{\left({10E_\mathrm a\over RT_1T_2}\right)} &= 2 \\ {10E_\mathrm a\over RT_1T_2} &= \ln{2} \\ {1\over T_1 T_2} &= {R\cdot\ln{2}\over 10E_\mathrm a} \\ T_1 T_2 &= {10E_\mathrm a\over R\cdot\ln{2}} \end{align} $$


From $T_2 - T_1 = 10$ we can solve for $T_2$ as $T_2 = T_1 + 10$. Substituting above:


$$ \begin{align} T_1 (T_1 + 10) &= {10E_\mathrm a\over R\cdot\ln{2}} \\ T_1^2 + 10T_1 - {10E_\mathrm a\over R\cdot\ln{2}} &= 0 \end{align} $$


For $E_\mathrm a = 50\,000$:


$$ T_1^2 + 10T_1 - {500\,000\over R\cdot\ln{2}} = 0 $$


Solving the quadratic equation:


$$ \begin{align} T_1 &= 290~\mathrm K \\ T_2 &= 300~\mathrm K \\ \Delta T &= 10~\mathrm K \end{align} $$


I don't think this proof is correct because substituting any value for activation energy ($E_\mathrm a$) onto the quadratic equation will produce different values for $T_1$, but that doesn't tell me anything.


What did I do wrong? Can this be proved any other way?




Answer



Your method and your mathematics seem perfectly fine, and your calculated result is correct. You are also quite correct that the result will change depending on the value of $E_\mathrm a$ that you choose.


The problem you're running into is the assumption that the stated rule of thumb holds exactly, regardless of temperature. It doesn't.




I would set up the problem as follows. Consider the ratio $\rho$ between the reaction occurring at some Kelvin temperature $T$, and at $T+10$:


$$ \rho = {e^{-E_\mathrm a\over R\,\left(T+10\right)}\over e^{-E_\mathrm a\over RT}} = e^{{E_\mathrm a\over R}\left({1\over T} - {1\over T+10}\right)} = e^{{E_\mathrm a\over R}\cdot {10\over{T^2+10T}}} $$


Plotting $\rho$ as a function of $T$ for $E_\mathrm a = 50~\mathrm{kJ\over mol}$, it becomes immediately clear that the rule of thumb does not hold over a very wide temperature range:


Rate ratio versus temp


In fact, it only holds strictly for one specific temperature, which is why your math led you to a single temperature as your answer. By my calculations, using a value of $8.3144598~\mathrm{J\over mol\, K}$ for $R$, that temperature is $289.56~K$, which is equal to your $T_1=290~K$ to within three significant figures.


The gray box in the figure marks where the rule holds to within $20\%$ – that is, where $\rho$ falls between $1.6$ and $2.4$. This corresponds to a temperature range of $257~\mathrm K$ to $353~\mathrm K$.



grammar - Meaning of 今日も一日?




仕事を終えた労働者が、ダンジョンから無事戻ってきた冒険者達が、今日も一日の締めくくりとばかりに酒盛りに耽っている。



This is the first time I have come across this. What exactly does it mean and how would I use it? I've seen it in other sentences too like:



今日も一日頑張りましょう!



Thanks!



Answer



We have two very different 「今日{きょう}も一日{いちにち}」's here.




今日も一日の締{し}めくくりとばかりに酒盛{さかも}りに耽{ふけ}っている。」





今日も一日の締{し}めくくりとばかりに酒盛{さかも}りに耽{ふけ}っている。」





一日の締めくくりとばかりに、今日も酒盛りに耽っている。」




Here, 「今日も ("today also")」 and 「一日 (the "work" day)」 function separately and independently from each other. Grammatically, it is not the same 「今日も一日」 that we use very often as a set phrase.


"Today, too, (they are) indulged in a drinking party as if it were the closing ceremony of the day."


Moving on...


The insanely common set phrase that I am talking about is the "other" 「今日も一日」 seen below.



今日も一日頑張{がんば}りましょう!」



Here, 「今日も一日」 means "today as usual" or even just "as always". It works adverbially.


"Let us work hard (today) as usual!"



Tuesday, September 24, 2019

halacha - What degree of punishment is assigned to one who wants to commit a sin, but is only stopped by the lack of an opportunity?



For instance, if one thought of murdering a certain someone, but the only thing stopping him was the lack of an opportunity, would he be liable to a punishment equal to that of a murderer, or something lesser? Is there no punishment at all?


Is there a difference between an individual who would commit the sin of his thoughts versus one who wouldn't?


This question came to mind after the subject of freedom of choice came up on Shabbat at the synagogue. If someone were to wish, like Hitler, that they could wipe out all the Jews, but the only thing stopping them is a lack of opportunity, would their punishment be equal to his (whatever it is)?




animals - Why are there no fish korbanot?



Land animals, birds, wheat and fruit offerings all feature on the list of offerings that Bnei Israel bring for Hashem.


Is there anyone that discusses why there are no fish korbanot?



Answer



The Midrash Tanchuma (Vayikra 1:8) asks your question:



ולמה קריבין קרבן מן העוף ומן הכבשים ומן הצאן ומן העזים ולא מן הדגים, שנאמר, [ו] אם מן העוף עולה קרבנו, אלא בשביל שהם בשר ודם כמו האדם ויוצאין מבטן אמן כמו האדם, מכפרים על האדם. אבל הדגים, ביצים הם ויוצאין מהן וחיין.


And why do we offer up sacrifices from birds, sheep and goats but not from fish?


Because they (animals and birds) resemble man as they are born from the stomach of their mother like man. Thus, they atone for man. Fish, however, are eggs, that they emerge from and live.



I do have a pshat as to what this means (obviously birds come from eggs, too), but I'll have to add this in later..



grammar - Understanding "よりを戻す" and "止めておこう"



I don't think us getting together tonight is such a good idea.


やっぱり今夜、よりを戻すのは止めておこう。




I would like to understand this sentence better, specifically the (idiomatic?) expression, "よりを戻す." I will parse the parts I am not sure of below to see if I grasp it correctly:


"やっぱり" "after all."


"よりを戻す" is an idiom(?) meaning "get back together."


"止めておこう" "Should let pass/should let the matter drop/let's quit"


If these are acceptable, how does "よりを戻す" express "get back together"?


And does the おこう in "止めておこう" derive from 置く?



Answer



As you correctly understood, よりを戻す is an idiom meaning for a broken couple to get back together.


[縒]{よ}る means “to twist threads together to make a thicker string.” [縒]{よ}りを戻す literally means to undo this process and turn a string into several threads apart. This may sound like the opposite of getting back together (certainly it does sound like the opposite to me), but I guess that the analogy here is that “twisting” refers to the conflict between a couple, and removing the twist corresponds to getting back together.


おこう in [止]{や}めておこう is etymologically derived from 置く (to put), but here …ておく means “to do … for now.” In this context, よりを戻すのをやめておく means to avoid getting back together for now.



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, ...