Recent content by Fernsanz

All the books that deal with the p-n junction under applied bias asume that the same equations used for the equilibrium case (no bias) can be used for the biased case provided that the juntcion voltage V_{ic} is substituted by V_{ic}-V, where V is the applied bias. Although this can seem...

I have been chewing up some time ago the Schottky-Mott theory of Schottky Barrier height (which ignores the surface states). All the deduction seems to ground on fundamental thermodynamical principles (as the equality of Fermi levels- i.e. equality of chemical potential in equilibrium) but there...

Hello. Given a binary system with two identical components (in particular de B-V index of both is the same), how would you calculate the B-V index of the system? and, how would it change during eclipses? I have my own answer, but want to contrast it against yours.

No answers?

That would be more logical for me, but no proof mention the "choice" to define the point \hat{x} even though, in mi opinion, if one is to use the Axiom of Choice/Zorn lemma this is the step to mention it. By contrast, all proofs use the AC/Zorn after the point have been selected to deduce that...

Hi. I'm trying to understand why is the Zorn's lemma needed to prove the Tychonoff theorem -the product of compact spaces is compact-. Specifically my question is about the proof in the book from Bachman-Narici based on the technic of Finite Intersection Property that you can find here...

I suppose you know the definition of convergence in probability (or, in general, in measure) of a sequence {f_n} of functions: {f_n} converges in measure to f if for any \epsilon and \delta \mu\left\{|f_n-f|>\delta\right\}<\epsilon for n large enough. So, attention is not focused on any...

You are right, I wrongly referred to the set of all triples (r, \theta, \phi) when I actually meant \{ (r, \theta, \phi) | r > 0, 0 \leq \theta < 2 \pi, -\pi/2 < \phi < \pi/2 \}. Good point. I further explain the motivation behind my question and my mental process. I came across this question...

How does that answer my question??

Hi, I have some doubts about the precise meaning of Euclidean space. I understand Euclidean space as the metric space (\mathbb{R}^n,d) where d is the usual distance d(x,y)=\sqrt{\sum_i(x_i-y_i)^2}. Now let's supose that we have our euclidean space (in 3D for simplicity) (\mathbb{R}^3,d)...

If for the problem stated there are cases where X is not invertible (even if there is just one of such cases) then it can not exist a theorem, a result, or an algorithm which allows us to invert the given expression with generelity, i.e. regardless of the values of R and S, (i.e., operating with...

With no further constraints the tensor you have proposed is, in general, not invertible. Consider for example the case R=S. Then X will be the null tensor. Or even the less trivial case R=S^{-1} will lead also to X=0 if R^2=1 (idempotent). Therefore, in general, it is not invertible.

No. What Jivesh means is that there are two different concepts involved. On one hand is the non-inertial frame nature of the Earth because it is rotating around Sun. On the other is gravity which has nothing to do with the rotation but that came up in you OP question. The Earth is non-inertial...

Think of an elevator. If you weight yourself while the elevator is going upwards your apparent weight will be higher, i.e., it is equivalent to some kind of force pulling you downwards yet that force does not really exist, it is virtual. The same is true for gravity according to general...

I correct myself. This is wrong, let me think it better, lol.