Genady

It was less than a minute, but yes, nothing new. They see the same data. The only suggestion they have was to wait for the monthly statement.

It's not the browser. I get the same data on the phone.

Especially strange as we're talking about a major US bank here... I'll call them later.

I think so. Some kind of a "key".

The pets should vote as well.

Last week I've made four ATM withdrawals. This morning I've noticed that my account balance went up compared to a couple of days ago. Then I've noticed that all four ATM transactions disappeared from my activities. That is the total amount by which the balance grew. What should I do about it, if anything?

Yes. Although they might become relevant at the Planck's scales.

Thanks.

After considering the last two comments, by @Janus and @Markus Hanke, I've realized that my attempt has failed. The spatial distance in the rest frame between the two measurement events has to be accounted for as well. Thank you.

The "+ ..." is yet another way to indicate "limit" as they in your link explain:

Yes, you did. That what "when n goes to infinity" means. It just another phrase for "limit".

That exactly means that the limit of the partial sums is 1. It does not mean that a partial sum is 1.

No, it does not mean that the partial sums total 1. It means that the limit of the partial sums is 1. I emphasize again: partial sums do not total 1; limit of partial sums is 1.

The (2^n-1)/2^n does not reach 1 and the definition does not imply that it does.

This exercise is from Gravitation by Misner, Thorne, Wheeler. I am concerned here with the second part of it, marked with green: My answer for the electric field is (ej, u). For the magnetic field, (ek, ei), where i-j-k are in the cyclical order of 1-2-3. Is it correct? For the reference, here is a components representation of the Faraday tensor in a Lorentz frame:

I'll try. Take a surface of a cone and attach a line to the tip. This space is two-dimensional 'under' the tip and one-dimensional 'above' it. No coordinates can pass the tip.

Ok.

The probe would read higher energy, but that reading will not be a temperature. To get the temperature from that reading, the peculiar motion will need to be subtracted. Like we subtract the peculiar motion of Earth to get the isotropic reading of CMB.

Which?

For this, I can think of a space with different dimensionality in different parts. It would be a topological space, but not a manifold.

We cannot predict the result, but we know how to get to it step-by-step. Thus, I don't think it explains "why at a high level we don't know how deep learning architectures produce their outputs."

I think, neither. We assume that (Topological space - Wikipedia).

It's average kinetic energy of a random motion of molecules. We cannot boil water by running around a kettle, unfortunately. Temperature measurements themselves are not affected. I want to point to the origin of this OP. It started with this exercise from MTW: My explanation above is my partial answer to the question at the end. I've added the conditions of uniform temperature in the OP to make the second term on the right vanish. OTOH, I've added in my explanation the gravitational time dilation effect, which is not considered in the exercise. Thank you for the last remark.

It does not.

You mean rather (2n-1)/2n. But we know that it does not.