Recent content by HyperActive

Ok, I understand. I guess I was hoping for some general advice, or that there was something else I could do to move this forward until that point, but if whatever steps I need to take depend on my institution and circumstances, I get that. A whole-hearted thanks to everyone who took the time to...

Thanks for your reply ZapperZ. Just to clarify, the paper I was thinking of wouldn't have been a "theoretical physics" paper - I couldn't even give a good description of a quark, much less write a theoretical physics paper. I mean theoretical in scope - like, instead of presenting new research...

Ok, I see. I don't care about the CV though - I really really want to do research. I've wanted to do that for years and since my first year at university I've been itching to do that. Problem is, psychology/neuroscience programs are insanely competitive where I live and it's been extremely...

Please don't mock me. I don't see how that's helpful. If you have actual criticisms, I'd like to hear them. That's part of what posting this thread is about. Also, I find it odd that with many similar threads on this forum that have been posted by laymen and crackpots, who haven't done even the...

Hi, I've decided to try to write and publish a paper by the end of my undergraduate degree. I'm planning to get advice from professors at my institution at a later stage in the process - I'd like to approach them when I've narrowed my topic some more and made the focus clearer, and when I've...

Yup, that's a good example. You say that Let's say we found one. Would such a proof be valid? Is direct proof (assuming a statement is true, deriving another statement, and concluding that the first statement implies the second) valid with a first statement like q^2 =2? Thanks!

Thank you! That's exactly what I'm asking, and that's a much clearer way to phrase it. I guess we do need a logician...

Ok, I see. First of all, thank you for your response! I understand that the proof might not just be as simple as saying it's vacuously true, but that's not necessarily how I'd like to prove these statements anyhow. Maybe I had better give some context for my question. In the math courses I've...

Hi, I'm comfortable using a direct proof to prove ##P → Q## type statements when I have a ##P## that is either always true (e.g ##x=x##) or can be true (e.g. ##x > 3##). But what about when ##P## is definitely false, (e.g. ##x \neq x##), or definitely false in relation to an earlier statement...

I can't view the page, but in any case I'll try to give you an answer. A marker can be viewed as a signal that identifies a particular behavior or response. Looking at it from a non-rigorous point of view, it can also be seen as something that "imparts information" about a behavior. Secondary...

Thank you both very much!

Thanks for the reply Stephen Tashi. :) In my book, the assumption that each element has an inverse is stated as follows: for all ##a \in G## , there exists a ##b \in G## such that ##a \cdot b = e##. That doesn't seem to rely on the two-sidedness of the identity element (and neither it seems to...

Hi I'm taking a math course at university that covers introductory group theory. The textbook's definition of the identity element of a group defines it as two sided; that is, they say that a group ##G## must have an element ##e## such that for all ##a \in G##, ##e \cdot a = a = a \cdot e## ...

Thank you both :) I think I understand now.

I'm just starting to learn about vectors, and I was trying to figure out what the vector components mean physically. I've seen two definitions of vectors, and the first is a that a vector is something with a size and a direction. The second definition I saw defined vectors as "displacements in...