Recent content by RagingHadron

Ahhhh thanks so much for all of your help!

So since the fields are coupled the VEV will always have/be giving a value because an interaction is always occurring? Is that how it works? Sorry...I'm trying to think of a way to visualize this in my mind and it's proving to be pretty difficult..

Ahhh thanks!

Oh and it seemed odd that they had less mass because I was thinking of the Higgs as like a single "unit" of mass, not as a particle whose interactions constitute mass <--(correct?)

Wait, so just to make sure I'm understanding, fields describing fermions are coupled to another field, the Higgs field, and so they interact. The Higgs field comes with a value that, since it comes with the fermionic field passes that value onto the fermion? And if the Higgs takes a value at...

So the way I understand it is that certain particles move through the Higgs field and encounter no resistance, giving it no mass. The others that do encounter resistance are the ones that have mass. But if increasing resistance means increasing mass, why wouldn't things become infinitely...

Never mind, I saw what my flaw was.

It was in the p versus np problem page specifically, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem here. It's in the third paragraph. But was the work that I did correct/incorrect? I'm sure that there's a flaw in my approach to the problem somewhere seeing as it's so simple...

Yeah that's what I meant. But what was wrong with the rest of it?

So I really know very little about the subject but from the little I could gather online... Consider the subset problem on wikipedia. Does a subset of {−2, −3, 15, 14, 7, −10} equal zero? It shows the work for you and then says that no algorithm to find it in polynomial time is known, only in...

Bapowell, that's the answer I was looking for haha. That's what confused me

Ohh ok thank you soo much. It makes more sense now

I'm more asking whether it's valid. Maybe my understanding of homeomorphism is wrong...

I didn't mean to imply that I thought that it had been ruled out, I was just wondering how their methods could rule it out

If my understanding is correct, they use shapes of things great distances apart and they compare certain properties measured to what is calculated for a closed, curved or flat universe. But my questions is if a 2-manifold is topologically homeomorphic to any 2-sphere and the same is true of...