Recent content by j93

I second your question.

I have to agree the sections in Jackson are actually readable unlike the Schwinger book or other E&M books. The problems are difficult but so can problems made by a professor, I don't mean to downplay but Jackson seems like it is an easier than it could be, you could be using an awful book and...

Has anybody used the newest edition of Jackson. It changes unit systems 3/4 (SI to CGS)into the book. The Red Edition is better but the quality of the binding is worse. If only they bound it like the new blue one but kept the information(unit consistency of the the red book).

I decided that I don't blame them anymore since they were being rewarded for increasing profits and saw a broken rating system that they could exploit. I sure as hell blame the government and the boards of those corporation for having a system where you can sell toxic assets packaged as a great...

Iconoclast, Physics is a different ballgame. There is the physics GRE and more emphasis on the Physics GRE than biology grad schools give to the Bio GRE.

To mathematicians defense by drawing something one probably means to give an abstract concept a representation which makes an abstract concept less general and mathematics is about figuring the most general rules.

There is no way you can know quantum without either linear algebra or PDE. Yes you can learn the square well by taking some things for granted, yes, you can probably learn what is generally regarded as wave mechanics but quantum mechanics isn't just what you learn at the level of the first few...

Oh sorry, The word limited usually seems to have a negative connotation so I misinterpreted it as such.

Should I post like this to make it easier. I thought people would be able to figure out recursion for themselves. CR argued that personhood is limited because a corporation cannot vote. I argued that if a corporation could vote (had complete personhood), it could vote infinitely with the only...

You haven't shown any proof/data of this nonstop assertion . I just don't understand any of the logic, you tried to use one data point to make an assertion then concede that a different assertion is true for 2000/2004 but use an "exception proves the rule" like argument to make an assertion for...

Exactly.

Its only a single point of public sentiment it cannot logically be used for anything other than making conclusions about the year it took place. Logically if you want to say you can use the 2008 election cycle to say that the democratic party is a party of the rich then you can use 2004/2000...

The idea of a corporation isn't a natural god-given concept why should it it have complete personhood at the expense of the democracy of the US. You can't have a democracy and the ability of anyone with enough money and time to vote as many times as they want.

There is a problem with using one election year to make a point about a party. Its like making doing analysis on a single data point. There are billionaires on both sides see Rubert Murdoch (Media Overlord), Waltons, Bloomberg.

They also can't vote for the obvious reason that you could use it recursively to vote as many times as you want.