studiot

You are right it was my sloppy use of language. I should have said The set {1} is part of the partition set of S so is a subset of S but not a member of S. This difference between the use of 'partition' in the physical sciences and in mathematics strikes again.

I still say that hybrid orbitals only occur in bonds, not free atoms. And the actual hybrid varies depending upon the actual atoms concerned. Here are some simple examples of the maths.

It is you attitude which impedes progress. I said, "I think that........" I did not try to lay down the law. Your response could have been that you think you do understand set theory perfectly and so you wonder what I mean. Instead you tried to lay down the law. I agree with this first statement. But this second statement is inaccurate. This means that the set S must contain sets as members. Which is not a requirement of set theory. The issue of failure to distinguish between subsets and elements is further compounded by your sudden switch from elements to members. The number 1 is a member, but not a subset of your set S = {1,2,3,4} The partition {1} is a subset of S but not a member of S. I don't take kindly to the attitude that you know everything and no one else knows anything. Particularly as you are introducing mocking irrelevancies such as "byspel", which are no longer funny.

Oh dear. I really thought the new forum upgrade included a change from plain English to Runish. Is that not the case. Frightfully sorry.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of disjoint in set theory. This should be cleared up prior to any other consideration.

It's always useful to have an idea what the update is supposed to achieve. There are some very knowledgable members here in respect of It matters so their input can always be considered valuable. For my part there was a prefectly understandable update announcement early this afterennon, in place of the usual site itself. When the site returned I noted that the information about members online / offline had changed its presentation. I really hope that the various clocks and timers are now coordinated so that members are not still shown as online half an hour after they have left, and the timing of post nn longer suggests that replies occur before the question is asked.

The future's good. the future's rosy. So they said back in 1910 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56748346

Since you have heard of fission can you not answer my polite and simple question ?

Contrarywise the opposite is obvious to myownself. So I executed three half turns widdershins to compensate. Yourowngoodself introduced the law of the excluded middle not yourstruly. In direct and fullsomeness of answer to your supplication for an exemplification Here is a spel from the great book of the WikiMaester. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

'Or something' is correct. For instance take the sd3 hybrid in the OP. What s and what d orbitals are involved, and why. In say potassium permanganate why are the perfectly good and valid solutions of Schrodinger changed in the manganese atom ? This is what I mean by half a question. Hybridisation arises because the environment of the atom (ie the orbitals in the rest of the atoms in the compound) make it energetically favourable. Manganese atoms do not wander around on their own configured in the sd3 condition. So we need the full information to be able to help. And the OP (who has been back since I last posted) seems reluctant to help us to help himself.

I would go further than this, if @LUFER is really interested in discussing sp or any other hybridisation further. Lufer, you do realise you have only asked half a question? If we have solutions to the Schrodinger equation as s and p etc orbitals, why do we need hybridisation ? Under what conditions will hybrids arise, they don't happen by themselves?

Has your education reached the point where you know what is meant by the term 'critical mass' ?

Do the Irish also have a not proven verdict ? There was an interesing discussion on Quora about 'yes and no' in other languages, Apparently two negatives do not make a positive in some languages (e g Russian).

Can you post the full question ? And also follow the rules by telling us what you have done so far? I am with exchemist on this (+1) as what you seem to be asking is Nobel Prize level work. A bit steep for SF Homework Help.

and other posts. No city has successfully solved the mass transit problem, though some have been more successful than others. Your 1000 passenger estimate is only possible in any mass transit system I know of by can only be done by cramming passengers in, as they have to on the London Underground. It is interesting to note this statistic: One Eurostar train weighs 800 Tonnes, carries 800 passengers (if full) and would clear 800 yards of one lane of the M25 (London Orbital Mororway). I am suggesting the best solution is to (drastically) reduce the number of needed journeys by a mixture of actions. Such change cannot be brought about overnight, just as the build up of needless journeys took time. Of course there are wholy unacceptable solutions offered by totalitarian states, such as the one the Harlequin I mentioned earlier lived in.

It's not alone there; Latin also doesn't have exact equivalents of "yes" and "no" afaik. Thank you for your response and the extra information. Latin, however does not have the superior scottish legal system that overcomes the inherent difficulties you are putting forward in first order logic. That is it the law of the excluded middle is not always valid and inappropriate use leads to many of the so called paradoxes in Philosophy, just as you have done here.

Like the London Underground you mean ? How many people can you get on such a train ? So how many trains would you need ? And what would you do with them for the rest of the day ? And what is the minimum timing interval between running several such trains on a line? So have you really solved the peak demand problem ? Transport orgasnisations have been wrestling with this problem since there were transport organisations. The History of the London Experience is particularly illuminating and is the reason London grew to be such a large urban area.

No you didn't you obviously believe in a Nirvana of model citizens. But at the same time you have singularly avoided my real points, particularly the one about peak demand and the one about safety. Peak demand and unnecessary journeys are linked to current planning theory which dictates we build huge housing areas widely separated from workplaces, thereby causing millions of unnecessary journeys every day. Why is the Amazon superwharehouse not located in the Middle of Edinburgh? A more sensible approach would be to remember the dairies of yore, most of which operated a fleet of electric delivery 'floats'. A good start would be to force all (perhaps large) distribution operation supermarkets to emulate them, reducing the several thousand cars that can be counted in the car parks of my town, during most days of any week.

I freely admit the toothbrush example was extreme for effect. However the topic is about making existing cars more efficient (and deciding what that means). Substituting other forms of transport, limiting their use and so on is surely off topic ? However I view greater 'efficiency' as fraught with perils. And rather insulting to motor engineers as well. I well remember the time when some practical people had the large square Volvo estate and many more aspired to have one but could not afford to. You could get a (several) standard 8 x 4 sheet into one of those. Volvo used to advertise their safety record, as their cars were built safe and sturdy all round. However they were heavier than average and less aerodynamically efficient. So they were less fuel efficient. Yes you can make an IC car more fuel efficient by reducing the panel size, doing a way with the chassis, load capacity, reducing the size of battery it has to carry and many more such savings, perhaps remove the aircon. But such vehicles are demonstrably less safe to drive. Now let us look at this dream Let us say you live in a dormitory town/village of say 15,000 working people. There is such a town near Exeter. Now let us ask if 10,000 of those people want a car at 0830 in the morning to get them to work (in Exeter) for 0900. Now let us consider that Mr Smith's car arrives, but the last use was to ferry four drunk students home the previous night. Not only were they drunk but they went by the curry takeaway and left all of their rubbish in the vehicle, and two of them threw up into the bargain. Who will police this ? So let us look at reducing uneccessary journeys from the point of view of the uneccessary journeys police. Should the right of 5 million football fans to attend away games every week be curtailed ? This would certainly reduce the 'efficiency' of trnasport systems by taking something away. And how about the uneccessary journeys police ? We recently had that high profile case of "Is it necessary to drive up to the (nearby) Peak District for some mental health well being during the Covid pandemic. The efficiencies always affect ordinary folks whicls the rich and powerful are insulated. The BBC did a recent freedom of information act survey of our government departments concerning which Ministers and Ministries were 'environmentally friendly' and published some very sad results. The Department of the Environment has no (yes zero) electric or hybrid vehicles. Boris will not give up his diesel (yes polluting diese) car. Nor will the Minister of Transport and many more I give you the words of whoever wrote the short story Repent Harlequin, said the Tick Tock Man

Interestingly I learned today that there is no word for yes and no word for no in Scottish Gaelic.

Sadly, that dream is fraught with many perils. Would you recommend everyone in a household or block of flats uses the same toothbrush so there is only one toothbrush?

I am quite taken aback by this adverse reaction to my genuine attempt to draw out the meaning of your question, whatever it actually might be. I don't know what your question is or what you mean by your original post so I asked, politely, for clarification. As I don't know what your question is, no 'categorisation' was attempted. I do however know that the quoted post makes a bold assertion, quite at variance with Physics, ancient and modern. I hope this is not a back door attempt to introduce religous preaching about 'one force' . So I ask you again, do you wish to discuss wavelength or do you wish to discuss colour ? They are quite different things. Perhaps you might like to think about the fact that the colour of an object is not always the same. What colour do you think a red post office box appears under the light from a sodium lamp ?

Looks good, +1. Perhaps I could suggest cutting a toothed rack into the raking supports for the MKII ? Then you could adjust the rake of the wall, although it already looks prety fearsome.

Perhaps and then again perhaps it is something else entirely. It really depends upon what you mean by 'negative'. So over to you to completely define it.

In other words we don't know. But none of this is inconsistent with what I said. You get some covid virus on your hands. As String Junky said, some may be more resistant to soap than others or I suggest perhaps better protected by the destroyed (since you object to the word dead) outer virii. Whatever the mechanism the protection is not perfect so the soap acts as a selective environment. Exactly as I said, and you said and SJ said. Yes we know that covid has jumped species. Fear of that, as opposed to the welfare of the mink, was the reason for the mink cull. Yes there was a report of a man who caught covid from his dog. Again my 'assumption' of a perfectly tailored virus was taken from your first answer. Not word for word but this certainly implied to me that A virus that is right for a pig or bat cannot be an 'intact particle' in your words or 'exactly tailored' in my words for humans. Which is why I asked for justification.