qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A "person" is an individual human being.
A "nature" is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set distinctly from Objects outside the group/set.
A series of doodles.
**Doodle 1 - What is a sensible way of talking about God?**
Trinitarians are all agreed:
The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. But there are not three Gods but One God only.
Please answer the following questions:
1. 1 + 1 + 1 =
2. (Infinity + Infinity + Infinity) =
3. (Infinity + Infinity + 1) =
4. (– Infinity – Infinity) =
(Answers will be given later.)
**Doodle 2 – What is the nature of a human being?**
Fred: “I saw the nature of humanity this morning just up the street.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a human being, yes? Male or female?”
Fred: “No, I mean what I said. And I also saw the nature of dog, as well.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a dog and a person, surely?”
Fred: “No, I mean exactly what I said. And I also saw the nature of life.”
Jake: “I give up. When you’re making sense tell me what you saw”.
**Doodle 3 – What is the essence of a square?**
A University Philosophy Exam Question:
Draw in the space provided the essence of a square. Make sure it is the correct size. (Please note correct answers will get plus points but a wrong answer will get minus points towards the final mark for the paper.)
**Doodle 4 – Mathematical Set Theory**
1. Draw a big circle and on the outside round the perimeter write a description of the set of “All shapes on a 2 dimensional surface”.
2. Inside the circle just drawn draw two more circles. On the perimeter of one of the circles write “the set of all squares”. On the perimeter of the other circle write “the set of all polygons”. Inside the circle of “all polygons” draw another circle and write for the circle “the set of all regular polygon”. For each of the sets: shapes, squares, polygons and regular polygons write a definition, i.e. give four definitions in total. For the each definition refer to the definition of the circle it is within: e.g. "A regular polygon is a shape in the form of a polygon which …"; or "A square is a shape which..", etc.
**Doodle 5 – To be the same, or not to be the same, that is the question.**
Take three identically sized see-through Perspex acetate A4 sheets. Draw on each sheet in exactly the same place on each sheet a square of whatever size you want, but each square has exactly the same size.
Superimpose the three sheets so the squares precisely cover each other. How many squares do you see?
If a lecturer had produced some acetates with identical squares on and sealed them together, the only way you can know how many acetates there are is if you were to ask him.
Right? And the only way we can know how many persons there are in the Godhead is if it is revealed to us.
**Doodle 6 – And God said “Let us make man in our own image” (Genesis 1:26)**.
Consider two situations:
A. You see a living human being who has what looks like one body except with two heads – Is it one person or two?
B. You see a human body which looks like two joined bodies together but with only one head – Is it one person or two?
Man is made in the image of God. This also tells us that God is in the likeness of man.
Do any humans literally share the same mind with any other humans? If a (human) person does not share a mind with another person then how can they (we) be created in the image of God if God literally shares the same (Object of) mind with the other Persons in the Godhead?
The Father said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) Speech is governed by the mind. What does it mean when we say that literally there is only one mind in the Godhead? What does it mean for passages such as this?
**Dodoodle 7 – *Things* exist, such as people, but do *“natures”* exist?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DW8EU.png)
The Dodo in “Alice in Wonderland” represented the author himself. Lewis Carroll’s real name was Charles Dodgson. He thought it appropriate because he had a stammer. Perhaps "Dodo" was his nickname amongst his friends.
Mummy says to her little boy:
“Please put away your toys, each toy in the correct box.” And then she leaves the room. Her boy has never done this before, but he is pretty smart and can read many words already. On one box is written “Lions”, on another “Monkeys”, on another “Pigeons”, etc. There are ten boxes altogether, each box for a different animal. On the smallest box is written “Dodos”.
The boy proceeds to put lions in the “Lions” box, monkeys in the “Monkeys” box, etc.
At the end all the boxes contain the correct animals, but the box marked “Dodos” is empty.
Boy: “Mummy, can you help me? I don’t know what a Dodo is or what it looks like so I couldn’t put any in the box.”
Mummy: “Never mind dear. I will make it easier for you for tomorrow.”
The next day the box marked Dodos has a description of what a Dodo looks like:
“Dodos. A Dodo is a bird. It has wings, but it has such small wings that it cannot fly. Full grown it is about up to Mummy’s waste. It has a slightly long neck. It does not have webbed feet, but rather it has feet like a pigeon. It has a very big beak where the top half slightly overlaps the bottom. In shape it looks a bit like a fat partridge, or a turkey, but with a stubby rear.”
Mummy hoped she was describing the essence of a Dodo clearly.
“O thank you Mummy! That will greatly help me. I will be able to group all the Dodos together in the Dodo box today!”
At the end of the day the little boy was more excited to put the toys away than he been to play with them. When he finally put the toys in the boxes he was disappointed to discover he still had not found any Dodos.
Boy: “Mummy, I still couldn’t find the dodos from your description.”
Mummy: “Ah, my dear. Let me tell you more about dodos.
Dodos are extinct, which means that they once lived but there are no more dodos in the world today because men killed them all off to eat them. They died out many years ago.
I wrote on the box the nature of a dodo, and my description of it was correct, but the truth is you don’t have any dodos.
Anyway, I have something for you. From under the table she brought a big box wrapped in wrapping paper. Happy birthday!” The boy knew his birthday was very soon but hadn’t realized it was today! Of course it was a dodo, nearly life-size (?). His mother had sewed spectacles onto its beak, and two walking sticks held by the little wings to help keep it upright, and had cut out the webs between the claws.
End of Doodles.
Answers to Doodle 1 in order: 3, Infinity, “to Infinity and beyond”, “back to infinity”. The only question that really matters is question 2.
**Objects and Natures/Essences**
An Object is something that exists. That might not be a correct definition, but it is mine, for the purpose for which I am writing. An Object is an objective thing. Many Objects can be seen, many cannot be seen, (eg electrons, Higgs-Boson particles, wind, and God the Father) but they are all still Objects (please excuse what sounds demeaning here).
An Essence cannot be seen. An Essence is just a description of reality. When Mummy was writing a description of a Dodo for her son she was writing the nature of a Dodo, or it’s Essence. **The Essence or nature of a dodo is just a description of all the Objects which belong to the Set of all Dodos, and which sets them apart from all other Objects**.
The fact that dodos no longer exist makes no difference to our ability to write about the nature or essence of dodos. Even when Dodos have ceased to exist their nature/essence continues to exist: because the Nature/Essence of a Dodo is entirely independent from the Object of a Dodo. A Nature/Essence is an abstract definition of an Object. It does not describe every detail of the Objects, merely the common and distinctive features of those Objects - common to each one within the nature, and with some of the description distinctive from all the Objects outside the set.
You cannot see any kind of nature/essence in the street. You can see an *Object* which fits all the criteria for a particular nature. But you are not seeing the nature, you are seeing an Object with that kind of nature.
All the sub-descriptions of a nature are all of them also nothing more than descriptions. A description of a regular polygon is the nature/essence of a regular polygon and nothing more. It is not a real thing in itself.
A nature then is nothing more nor less than a definition of all the Objects within the Set defined by that nature. It is not in itself an Object.
**Summary**
When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A person is an individual human being.
A nature is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set.
The greater complexity with God arises because of the nature of God, that definition which describes God.
Each person of the Godhead is the exact likeness of the other two. They are identical in all except their relation to each other and to their outward works of creation, preservation and salvation. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit went to the cross to die for sinners. The Father made the heavens and the earth but it was because the Spirit was hovering over the waters and the creation was through the Word of God which is Christ. The Father didn’t hover, nor is he the Word of God, the Spirit did not speak nor is he the Word, and the Word did not create without the Father nor the Spirit.
God is omnipresent. All the persons of the Godhead are likewise omnipresent. Even when the Son of God became incarnate he was still omnipresent.
God is omniscient. Each member of the Godhead is omniscient.
God is omnipotent. God is perfect. God has an eternal plan. In each and all these and every other way the Persons of the Godhead are identical with the exception given above.
But to say that God has the same Object of mind which the three persons of the Godhead share between them is not only a denial of man being created in the image of God (no humans share one Object called mind between them), but is a category error also: a nature of a thing is merely a definition of the Objects within a set containing all the Objects within that set.
Each Person in the Godhead then has an Object called mind. They have three separate minds: but like the acetate drawings of squares you might have no idea there was more than one unless you were told.
We *have been told*, because
A) We are in God's image, and each Person in the Godhead is God. And we, none of us share the same Object called mind between us.
B) the scriptures are full of distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as in Genesis 1:1-3. Not distinctions of their abilities or any variation in their perfections, but distinctions in their operation towards their creation, and distinctions between each other: one is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. Theologians have called them persons: therefore they must be like us, having our own faculty of mind, will, knowledge, etc. They do not share any of their faculties, but they are in perfect agreement in each faculty, because the three are one God. | The triune nature of God involves the Perfection...of the Lord of heaven availing Himself in Creation in a way that imperfect, sinful man can 'know' Him. That is the single greatest purpose of the Bible: "...*you will know that I am Lord*..." Imperfection would be totally destroyed by Perfection unless Perfection 'restrained' Itself by Mercy and Grace. The transcendent idea of The God of heaven 'pulling back' to make room for something 'not God', Creation, is involved in the Hebrew term 'tzimtzum'. Do a web search, there is much information concerning this transcendence. 'Fear of the Lord' is at the same time fright and reverence....
The transcendent distinction of the Lord of heaven and the Lord of Creation is important in understanding the 'Trinity'. The Lord of heaven is Holy, and Glorious, worthy of every blessing...; and the Lord of Creation suffers every insult.... Why? In Isaiah chapter 6, Isaiah is observing the Lord, Adonai, and the LORD, Yahweh, and the plural God, Elohim, in heaven.... And the angels are saying "Holy, Holy, Holy..." and the place is filled with Glory, and Isaiah says "...woe! is me...I am (a sinner)..., (I don't belong here)" And his sins are atoned for, in heaven.... Isaiah has a conversation with Adonai and He asks "...who will go for Us...?" In John chapter 12 verse 41, John says that Isaiah "...*saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him.*" And in chapter 17 verses 1 through 5 Jesus prays: "...*Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began*." Jesus is Adonai Yahweh incarnate. Therein, He is the Creator...(Colossians 1:15-20)the Light of the world; the day one Light of Creation, become flesh....
Yahweh, Lord of heaven is One with God.... Yahweh, LORD of Creation is: our Shepherd (Ps 23:1 Yahweh-raah), Provider (Ge 22:14 Yahweh-jirah), Righteousness (Je 23:6, Yahweh-tzidkenu), Peace (Jd 6:24 Yahweh-shalom), Salvation (Ex 15:2 Yahweh-yesha).... The Perfection of the Father in heaven...arrays Himself to Creation like a rainbow. Therein every facet of His Holiness avails Itself to the acuity of man. And we can be holy even as He is Holy (Le 19:2). He has Created eyeballs that can bring together the 'colors' of Creation, and a brain that can make sense of It; and a heart that can value It; and feet that can navigate It; and a soul that can 'know that He is Lord', and agree with Him, love Him; or not....
The idea of the rainbow array is implicated in the Rainbow Covenant of Genesis 9, and the image of God in Ezekiel 1:27-28, and the Rainbow references in Revelation. Therein, the incarnate God is plural, not by multiplication, God #1, #2, #3, but rather by division. The incarnate array of the Lord has a common denominator - Holiness; and the reciprocal is magnitude.
The incarnate Lord is both the substance and the essence of Creation....
The Spirit of the LORD, Yahweh, speaks to us as Wisdom in Proverbs chapter 8. She was the first thing 'brought forth' by the LORD; not Created; not made. Wisdom participated with God in Creation; was arrayed to Creation, and delighted in it. Wisdom possess knowledge (v12) and fear of the Lord (v13), council and understanding and power (v14). Isaiah 11, speaking of Jesus, says: v2 "*The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him — the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord— 3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.*" Revelation speaks of the Seven-fold Spirit of God.
Both Adonai-Yahweh and the Spirit are involved in Creation, with the LORD of heaven.
When a blinding bright light arrays itself as a rainbow, the light itself is not diminished, rather divided in a luminary sense that can be perceived.... In that sense, Adonai-Yahweh-Spirit are One with the Father yet availed to Creation, to man's en-Light-enment.... Therein Jesus says "...the Father and I are One..." and "...I do nothing that I haven't received from my Father..." Jesus is the incarnate Word of God. He is the subatomic energy, the Light, of Creation; Omnipotent, all powerful; Omnipresent.... He is Wise; Omniscient... He is at the same time the Holy God of heaven and the servant God of Creation.... The confounding idea of the 'Trinity' should not be so much about the 'how' of the thing as the 'Why' of the thing. Who are you that you can even consider the marvels of Him who loves you...and gave Himself for you!? Is the transcendent God good and worthy of blessings? or is He not...?
*It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings.*
Proverbs 25:2 |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other. The distinction of the Trinity is primarily taught by their *immanent relations* (the relationship they had within their one nature outside from creation): 'The Father begat the Son', 'The Son is begotten from the Father', and 'the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (or the Father alone).'
Calling them 'persons' ( *persona* in Latin) is meant also to explain their distinction. A person is a *rational entity*, one who exists with the capacity to reason and is self-aware (possesses a mind) and is aware of other selves (social).
Yahweh is one being (Latin: *essentia*) which means that there exists only one independent God known as Yahweh. ("I am who I am" Exodus 3:14 LXX). In this one divine being exists not only one self but three selves ( = three divine persons) which is different from one human being that is normally one person only.
Three human persons who possess the same nature are three human beings. Ergo, they are three men.
The three divine persons who possess the same nature (*homoousios*) are one being. Ergo, they are one God. | **What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personae?**
First of all, God is a trinity. That is, God is three divine persons, in one divine being. Each person within the Sacred Trinity are equally three Divine Persons and are not three separate [personae](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/persona). Personae is a rather poor term to employ for the Three Divine Persons.
>
> A [persona](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona) (plural personae or personas), according to the context, either is the public image of one's personality, or is the social role that one adopts, or is a fictional character. The word derives from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. On the social web, users develop virtual personas as online identities. In fan fiction and in online stories, the personas may especially reflect the authors' self-insertion.
>
>
>
The three persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We profess in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Church uses the word spirate to describe this phenomenon of God the Holy Spirit proceeding from God the Father, and God the Son. "He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and in one spiration." In other words the Holy Spirit proceeds, or spirates, from one beginning, not from two, even though He proceeds from God the Father and God the Son.
The Catholic Church also uses the word consubstantial to describe the relationship of the Holy Spirit, indeed all the members of the Trinity, with one another. "Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them2". The word "consubtantial" comes from the Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance. This is a translation of the Greek ***homoousion***, from homos, same, and ousia, essence. The Latin word for consubstantial is also used in the Nicene Creed we say at Mass to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and is currently translated as "one in being".
The Catechism of the Catholic Church may help shed some light on this subject. Although somewhat long, it is quite clear in explaining the Holy Trinity as being one God in three persons.
>
> 234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith". The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin".
>
>
> 235 This paragraph expounds briefly (I) how the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was revealed, (II) how the Church has articulated the doctrine of the faith regarding this mystery, and (III) how, by the divine missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father fulfills the "plan of his loving goodness" of creation, redemption and sanctification.
>
>
> 236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. **So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.**
>
>
> 237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
>
>
> 239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. **We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.**
>
>
> 240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
>
>
> 241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".
>
>
> 242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him. The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".
>
>
> 243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth". The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.
>
>
> 244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
>
>
> 245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."
>
>
> 246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
>
>
>
St. Augustine of Hippo also tells us that the Holy Spirit is the love between God the Father and God the Son. He insists that the Holy Spirit is love itself. He reasons: "...if there be among the gifts of God none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is Himself love, who is called both God and of God?" St. Augustine goes so far as to say that we can use "Love" as a proper name for the Holy Spirit. "... the Spirit also is given Love as a proper name, even though the Father and the Son are Love as well in a general sense".
>
> 31. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love. - [On the Trinity (Book XV)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm) St. Augustine
>
>
> |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen by all and so we are without excuse in knowing God exists as the one self-existent being.
>
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
>
>
>
This is like seeing a sculpture and knowing that someone sculpted it. If I supposed that "[David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo))" had just happened or had somehow always been I would be without excuse and likely deliberate in my ignorance.
I can study the sculpture David and learn some things from it about the sculptor. I can perhaps find other works of the same artist. I can learn that he is masterful at his craft, fluent in many mediums, careful and precise in his work. I can know that he was a human being but I cannot know him intimately as a person.
If I could live with Michelangelo and interact with him daily I could hear what he says and see what he does and how he does it and thus over time put together an intimate knowledge of who he is as a person. In relationship to his creations I can know of him. In relationship to his person I can know him.
The Trinity is how God can be known intimately and personally. The Father is who He is, the Son is what he says, and the Spirit is what/how He does. Because God is infinite, He is infinitely all three in unity and infinitely each of the three distinctly. Thus it is reasonable to claim that Jesus (the Word) is God and the Father is God but Jesus is not the Father, etc. | You, me and Fred are three different people.
But you me and Fred are all human - we share the same nature.
But you me and Fred are *different* in our characters, desires, life-history and genetic makeup.
Now God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are three different "people". They each have their own will, own understanding, own likes and dislikes.
But each one of these three people is perfect in all respects. It turns out their wills, though uniquely their own because they are people in their own right is also actually identical to the wills of the other two. In fact, because each one is perfect in knowledge, in understanding, in power, in ability, in loves and hates, infinite in all things, you can say "Whatever the Father wills, the Son also wills and the Holy Spirit wills" "Whatever the Father can do, the Son can do, and the Holy Spirit can do".
In all that makes each one a person there is absolutely no difference in their characters or abilities because they all share the same perfections of Godhead. So whereas humans differ one from another in personality and ability, the persons in the Godhead, because they are each one *perfect*, cannot possibly differ.
The perfection of Godhead belongs with each one of them, and therefore they must be the same One God in three persons.
If others see my mistakes in *underestimating* the three in one nature of the Godhead then know this is a bit of a rushed answer (sorry). Please let me know and I will update, or simply point to your comments or remove altogether.
If the Bible said there are four persons in the Godhead we would believe that. But the Bible says "Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a *partial* unity.
* But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is *indivisible* - one God.
See the [First Council of Nicea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.
>
> I and my Father are **one.**[John 10:30 KJV]
>
>
>
>
> God is **Spirit** [John 4:24, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the **fulness** of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> ... being in the **form**, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]
>
>
> | The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other. The distinction of the Trinity is primarily taught by their *immanent relations* (the relationship they had within their one nature outside from creation): 'The Father begat the Son', 'The Son is begotten from the Father', and 'the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (or the Father alone).'
Calling them 'persons' ( *persona* in Latin) is meant also to explain their distinction. A person is a *rational entity*, one who exists with the capacity to reason and is self-aware (possesses a mind) and is aware of other selves (social).
Yahweh is one being (Latin: *essentia*) which means that there exists only one independent God known as Yahweh. ("I am who I am" Exodus 3:14 LXX). In this one divine being exists not only one self but three selves ( = three divine persons) which is different from one human being that is normally one person only.
Three human persons who possess the same nature are three human beings. Ergo, they are three men.
The three divine persons who possess the same nature (*homoousios*) are one being. Ergo, they are one God. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | **What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personae?**
First of all, God is a trinity. That is, God is three divine persons, in one divine being. Each person within the Sacred Trinity are equally three Divine Persons and are not three separate [personae](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/persona). Personae is a rather poor term to employ for the Three Divine Persons.
>
> A [persona](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona) (plural personae or personas), according to the context, either is the public image of one's personality, or is the social role that one adopts, or is a fictional character. The word derives from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. On the social web, users develop virtual personas as online identities. In fan fiction and in online stories, the personas may especially reflect the authors' self-insertion.
>
>
>
The three persons are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We profess in the Nicene Creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Church uses the word spirate to describe this phenomenon of God the Holy Spirit proceeding from God the Father, and God the Son. "He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and in one spiration." In other words the Holy Spirit proceeds, or spirates, from one beginning, not from two, even though He proceeds from God the Father and God the Son.
The Catholic Church also uses the word consubstantial to describe the relationship of the Holy Spirit, indeed all the members of the Trinity, with one another. "Consubstantial with the Father and the Son, the Spirit is inseparable from them2". The word "consubtantial" comes from the Latin consubstantialem, of one essence or substance. This is a translation of the Greek ***homoousion***, from homos, same, and ousia, essence. The Latin word for consubstantial is also used in the Nicene Creed we say at Mass to describe the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and is currently translated as "one in being".
The Catechism of the Catholic Church may help shed some light on this subject. Although somewhat long, it is quite clear in explaining the Holy Trinity as being one God in three persons.
>
> 234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith". The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin".
>
>
> 235 This paragraph expounds briefly (I) how the mystery of the Blessed Trinity was revealed, (II) how the Church has articulated the doctrine of the faith regarding this mystery, and (III) how, by the divine missions of the Son and the Holy Spirit, God the Father fulfills the "plan of his loving goodness" of creation, redemption and sanctification.
>
>
> 236 The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. **So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.**
>
>
> 237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.
>
>
> 239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. **We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.**
>
>
> 240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
>
>
> 241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; as "the image of the invisible God"; as the "radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature".
>
>
> 242 Following this apostolic tradition, the Church confessed at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea (325) that the Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him. The second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the Nicene Creed and confessed "the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father".
>
>
> 243 Before his Passover, Jesus announced the sending of "another Paraclete" (Advocate), the Holy Spirit. At work since creation, having previously "spoken through the prophets", the Spirit will now be with and in the disciples, to teach them and guide them "into all the truth". The Holy Spirit is thus revealed as another divine person with Jesus and the Father.
>
>
> 244 The eternal origin of the Holy Spirit is revealed in his mission in time. The Spirit is sent to the apostles and to the Church both by the Father in the name of the Son, and by the Son in person, once he had returned to the Father.The sending of the person of the Spirit after Jesus' glorification reveals in its fullness the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
>
>
> 245 The apostolic faith concerning the Spirit was confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (381): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father." By this confession, the Church recognizes the Father as "the source and origin of the whole divinity". But the eternal origin of the Spirit is not unconnected with the Son's origin: "The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son, of the same substance and also of the same nature. . . Yet he is not called the Spirit of the Father alone,. . . but the Spirit of both the Father and the Son.” The Creed of the Church from the Council of Constantinople confesses: "With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified."
>
>
> 246 The Latin tradition of the Creed confesses that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque)". The Council of Florence in 1438 explains: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."
>
>
>
St. Augustine of Hippo also tells us that the Holy Spirit is the love between God the Father and God the Son. He insists that the Holy Spirit is love itself. He reasons: "...if there be among the gifts of God none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is Himself love, who is called both God and of God?" St. Augustine goes so far as to say that we can use "Love" as a proper name for the Holy Spirit. "... the Spirit also is given Love as a proper name, even though the Father and the Son are Love as well in a general sense".
>
> 31. As, then, we call the only Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although universally both the Father and the Son are love. - [On the Trinity (Book XV)](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130115.htm) St. Augustine
>
>
> | Christianity, like Islam and Judaism is a monotheistic religion. This means that it declares that there is only one God, that is a single unitary divine principle.
However, in Christianity unlike Islam and Judaism there are three divine principles. The Father (the Godhead), the Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit.
The tension arises from resolving this with the self-declared monotheism. In the Catholic tradition the accepted formula after the Council of Nicea is the trinitarian formula.
This designates three 'persons' and hence distinct from each other but whilst being cosubstantial, that of the same substance. Substance is a philosophical term deriving from Ancient Greek philosophy and is the primary sense in which being is to be understood. So to say that three 'persons' are cosubstantial, is to say that they have the same being, that is to say that they are fundamentally the same being.
This was established in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD. This was then clarified by the Cappodocian Fathers of Turkey when the formula of 'three hypostases in one ousia' came to be accepted as the 'epitome of orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.' Whilst ousia is Latin for substance as described above; here, the term hypostases was borrowed from the neo-Platonists who argued that behind phenomenal reality there were higher spiritual essences - or hypostases. For Plotinus, a Hellenic philosopher living in Roman Egypt, these are the Soul, the Intellect and the One. Notably, there is a trinitarian conception here. However, in the trinitarian formula of orthodox Christianity they are enfolded into the One to avoid tritheism - that is to avoid the accusation of three gods, and so polytheism.
In this sense they resolve the tension between the three divine principles of Christianity and its single immanent divine principle.
Islam of course resolves the tension by denying the divinity of Christ (whilst affirming his prophethood), in the sense of being cosubstantial with God (and nor is there any mention of the Holy Spirit). Whilst the Arian Heresy, denies it partly by affirming Christ was begotten in time and hence at some time 'was not' (and so could not be cosubstantial) but whilst affirming his divinity. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a *partial* unity.
* But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is *indivisible* - one God.
See the [First Council of Nicea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.
>
> I and my Father are **one.**[John 10:30 KJV]
>
>
>
>
> God is **Spirit** [John 4:24, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the **fulness** of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> ... being in the **form**, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]
>
>
> | God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen by all and so we are without excuse in knowing God exists as the one self-existent being.
>
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
>
>
>
This is like seeing a sculpture and knowing that someone sculpted it. If I supposed that "[David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo))" had just happened or had somehow always been I would be without excuse and likely deliberate in my ignorance.
I can study the sculpture David and learn some things from it about the sculptor. I can perhaps find other works of the same artist. I can learn that he is masterful at his craft, fluent in many mediums, careful and precise in his work. I can know that he was a human being but I cannot know him intimately as a person.
If I could live with Michelangelo and interact with him daily I could hear what he says and see what he does and how he does it and thus over time put together an intimate knowledge of who he is as a person. In relationship to his creations I can know of him. In relationship to his person I can know him.
The Trinity is how God can be known intimately and personally. The Father is who He is, the Son is what he says, and the Spirit is what/how He does. Because God is infinite, He is infinitely all three in unity and infinitely each of the three distinctly. Thus it is reasonable to claim that Jesus (the Word) is God and the Father is God but Jesus is not the Father, etc. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a *partial* unity.
* But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is *indivisible* - one God.
See the [First Council of Nicea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea). But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.
>
> I and my Father are **one.**[John 10:30 KJV]
>
>
>
>
> God is **Spirit** [John 4:24, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the **fulness** of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]
>
>
>
>
> ... being in the **form**, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]
>
>
> | When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A "person" is an individual human being.
A "nature" is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set distinctly from Objects outside the group/set.
A series of doodles.
**Doodle 1 - What is a sensible way of talking about God?**
Trinitarians are all agreed:
The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. But there are not three Gods but One God only.
Please answer the following questions:
1. 1 + 1 + 1 =
2. (Infinity + Infinity + Infinity) =
3. (Infinity + Infinity + 1) =
4. (– Infinity – Infinity) =
(Answers will be given later.)
**Doodle 2 – What is the nature of a human being?**
Fred: “I saw the nature of humanity this morning just up the street.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a human being, yes? Male or female?”
Fred: “No, I mean what I said. And I also saw the nature of dog, as well.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a dog and a person, surely?”
Fred: “No, I mean exactly what I said. And I also saw the nature of life.”
Jake: “I give up. When you’re making sense tell me what you saw”.
**Doodle 3 – What is the essence of a square?**
A University Philosophy Exam Question:
Draw in the space provided the essence of a square. Make sure it is the correct size. (Please note correct answers will get plus points but a wrong answer will get minus points towards the final mark for the paper.)
**Doodle 4 – Mathematical Set Theory**
1. Draw a big circle and on the outside round the perimeter write a description of the set of “All shapes on a 2 dimensional surface”.
2. Inside the circle just drawn draw two more circles. On the perimeter of one of the circles write “the set of all squares”. On the perimeter of the other circle write “the set of all polygons”. Inside the circle of “all polygons” draw another circle and write for the circle “the set of all regular polygon”. For each of the sets: shapes, squares, polygons and regular polygons write a definition, i.e. give four definitions in total. For the each definition refer to the definition of the circle it is within: e.g. "A regular polygon is a shape in the form of a polygon which …"; or "A square is a shape which..", etc.
**Doodle 5 – To be the same, or not to be the same, that is the question.**
Take three identically sized see-through Perspex acetate A4 sheets. Draw on each sheet in exactly the same place on each sheet a square of whatever size you want, but each square has exactly the same size.
Superimpose the three sheets so the squares precisely cover each other. How many squares do you see?
If a lecturer had produced some acetates with identical squares on and sealed them together, the only way you can know how many acetates there are is if you were to ask him.
Right? And the only way we can know how many persons there are in the Godhead is if it is revealed to us.
**Doodle 6 – And God said “Let us make man in our own image” (Genesis 1:26)**.
Consider two situations:
A. You see a living human being who has what looks like one body except with two heads – Is it one person or two?
B. You see a human body which looks like two joined bodies together but with only one head – Is it one person or two?
Man is made in the image of God. This also tells us that God is in the likeness of man.
Do any humans literally share the same mind with any other humans? If a (human) person does not share a mind with another person then how can they (we) be created in the image of God if God literally shares the same (Object of) mind with the other Persons in the Godhead?
The Father said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) Speech is governed by the mind. What does it mean when we say that literally there is only one mind in the Godhead? What does it mean for passages such as this?
**Dodoodle 7 – *Things* exist, such as people, but do *“natures”* exist?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DW8EU.png)
The Dodo in “Alice in Wonderland” represented the author himself. Lewis Carroll’s real name was Charles Dodgson. He thought it appropriate because he had a stammer. Perhaps "Dodo" was his nickname amongst his friends.
Mummy says to her little boy:
“Please put away your toys, each toy in the correct box.” And then she leaves the room. Her boy has never done this before, but he is pretty smart and can read many words already. On one box is written “Lions”, on another “Monkeys”, on another “Pigeons”, etc. There are ten boxes altogether, each box for a different animal. On the smallest box is written “Dodos”.
The boy proceeds to put lions in the “Lions” box, monkeys in the “Monkeys” box, etc.
At the end all the boxes contain the correct animals, but the box marked “Dodos” is empty.
Boy: “Mummy, can you help me? I don’t know what a Dodo is or what it looks like so I couldn’t put any in the box.”
Mummy: “Never mind dear. I will make it easier for you for tomorrow.”
The next day the box marked Dodos has a description of what a Dodo looks like:
“Dodos. A Dodo is a bird. It has wings, but it has such small wings that it cannot fly. Full grown it is about up to Mummy’s waste. It has a slightly long neck. It does not have webbed feet, but rather it has feet like a pigeon. It has a very big beak where the top half slightly overlaps the bottom. In shape it looks a bit like a fat partridge, or a turkey, but with a stubby rear.”
Mummy hoped she was describing the essence of a Dodo clearly.
“O thank you Mummy! That will greatly help me. I will be able to group all the Dodos together in the Dodo box today!”
At the end of the day the little boy was more excited to put the toys away than he been to play with them. When he finally put the toys in the boxes he was disappointed to discover he still had not found any Dodos.
Boy: “Mummy, I still couldn’t find the dodos from your description.”
Mummy: “Ah, my dear. Let me tell you more about dodos.
Dodos are extinct, which means that they once lived but there are no more dodos in the world today because men killed them all off to eat them. They died out many years ago.
I wrote on the box the nature of a dodo, and my description of it was correct, but the truth is you don’t have any dodos.
Anyway, I have something for you. From under the table she brought a big box wrapped in wrapping paper. Happy birthday!” The boy knew his birthday was very soon but hadn’t realized it was today! Of course it was a dodo, nearly life-size (?). His mother had sewed spectacles onto its beak, and two walking sticks held by the little wings to help keep it upright, and had cut out the webs between the claws.
End of Doodles.
Answers to Doodle 1 in order: 3, Infinity, “to Infinity and beyond”, “back to infinity”. The only question that really matters is question 2.
**Objects and Natures/Essences**
An Object is something that exists. That might not be a correct definition, but it is mine, for the purpose for which I am writing. An Object is an objective thing. Many Objects can be seen, many cannot be seen, (eg electrons, Higgs-Boson particles, wind, and God the Father) but they are all still Objects (please excuse what sounds demeaning here).
An Essence cannot be seen. An Essence is just a description of reality. When Mummy was writing a description of a Dodo for her son she was writing the nature of a Dodo, or it’s Essence. **The Essence or nature of a dodo is just a description of all the Objects which belong to the Set of all Dodos, and which sets them apart from all other Objects**.
The fact that dodos no longer exist makes no difference to our ability to write about the nature or essence of dodos. Even when Dodos have ceased to exist their nature/essence continues to exist: because the Nature/Essence of a Dodo is entirely independent from the Object of a Dodo. A Nature/Essence is an abstract definition of an Object. It does not describe every detail of the Objects, merely the common and distinctive features of those Objects - common to each one within the nature, and with some of the description distinctive from all the Objects outside the set.
You cannot see any kind of nature/essence in the street. You can see an *Object* which fits all the criteria for a particular nature. But you are not seeing the nature, you are seeing an Object with that kind of nature.
All the sub-descriptions of a nature are all of them also nothing more than descriptions. A description of a regular polygon is the nature/essence of a regular polygon and nothing more. It is not a real thing in itself.
A nature then is nothing more nor less than a definition of all the Objects within the Set defined by that nature. It is not in itself an Object.
**Summary**
When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A person is an individual human being.
A nature is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set.
The greater complexity with God arises because of the nature of God, that definition which describes God.
Each person of the Godhead is the exact likeness of the other two. They are identical in all except their relation to each other and to their outward works of creation, preservation and salvation. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit went to the cross to die for sinners. The Father made the heavens and the earth but it was because the Spirit was hovering over the waters and the creation was through the Word of God which is Christ. The Father didn’t hover, nor is he the Word of God, the Spirit did not speak nor is he the Word, and the Word did not create without the Father nor the Spirit.
God is omnipresent. All the persons of the Godhead are likewise omnipresent. Even when the Son of God became incarnate he was still omnipresent.
God is omniscient. Each member of the Godhead is omniscient.
God is omnipotent. God is perfect. God has an eternal plan. In each and all these and every other way the Persons of the Godhead are identical with the exception given above.
But to say that God has the same Object of mind which the three persons of the Godhead share between them is not only a denial of man being created in the image of God (no humans share one Object called mind between them), but is a category error also: a nature of a thing is merely a definition of the Objects within a set containing all the Objects within that set.
Each Person in the Godhead then has an Object called mind. They have three separate minds: but like the acetate drawings of squares you might have no idea there was more than one unless you were told.
We *have been told*, because
A) We are in God's image, and each Person in the Godhead is God. And we, none of us share the same Object called mind between us.
B) the scriptures are full of distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as in Genesis 1:1-3. Not distinctions of their abilities or any variation in their perfections, but distinctions in their operation towards their creation, and distinctions between each other: one is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. Theologians have called them persons: therefore they must be like us, having our own faculty of mind, will, knowledge, etc. They do not share any of their faculties, but they are in perfect agreement in each faculty, because the three are one God. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct from each other. The distinction of the Trinity is primarily taught by their *immanent relations* (the relationship they had within their one nature outside from creation): 'The Father begat the Son', 'The Son is begotten from the Father', and 'the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son (or the Father alone).'
Calling them 'persons' ( *persona* in Latin) is meant also to explain their distinction. A person is a *rational entity*, one who exists with the capacity to reason and is self-aware (possesses a mind) and is aware of other selves (social).
Yahweh is one being (Latin: *essentia*) which means that there exists only one independent God known as Yahweh. ("I am who I am" Exodus 3:14 LXX). In this one divine being exists not only one self but three selves ( = three divine persons) which is different from one human being that is normally one person only.
Three human persons who possess the same nature are three human beings. Ergo, they are three men.
The three divine persons who possess the same nature (*homoousios*) are one being. Ergo, they are one God. | Christianity, like Islam and Judaism is a monotheistic religion. This means that it declares that there is only one God, that is a single unitary divine principle.
However, in Christianity unlike Islam and Judaism there are three divine principles. The Father (the Godhead), the Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit.
The tension arises from resolving this with the self-declared monotheism. In the Catholic tradition the accepted formula after the Council of Nicea is the trinitarian formula.
This designates three 'persons' and hence distinct from each other but whilst being cosubstantial, that of the same substance. Substance is a philosophical term deriving from Ancient Greek philosophy and is the primary sense in which being is to be understood. So to say that three 'persons' are cosubstantial, is to say that they have the same being, that is to say that they are fundamentally the same being.
This was established in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD. This was then clarified by the Cappodocian Fathers of Turkey when the formula of 'three hypostases in one ousia' came to be accepted as the 'epitome of orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.' Whilst ousia is Latin for substance as described above; here, the term hypostases was borrowed from the neo-Platonists who argued that behind phenomenal reality there were higher spiritual essences - or hypostases. For Plotinus, a Hellenic philosopher living in Roman Egypt, these are the Soul, the Intellect and the One. Notably, there is a trinitarian conception here. However, in the trinitarian formula of orthodox Christianity they are enfolded into the One to avoid tritheism - that is to avoid the accusation of three gods, and so polytheism.
In this sense they resolve the tension between the three divine principles of Christianity and its single immanent divine principle.
Islam of course resolves the tension by denying the divinity of Christ (whilst affirming his prophethood), in the sense of being cosubstantial with God (and nor is there any mention of the Holy Spirit). Whilst the Arian Heresy, denies it partly by affirming Christ was begotten in time and hence at some time 'was not' (and so could not be cosubstantial) but whilst affirming his divinity. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A "person" is an individual human being.
A "nature" is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set distinctly from Objects outside the group/set.
A series of doodles.
**Doodle 1 - What is a sensible way of talking about God?**
Trinitarians are all agreed:
The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. But there are not three Gods but One God only.
Please answer the following questions:
1. 1 + 1 + 1 =
2. (Infinity + Infinity + Infinity) =
3. (Infinity + Infinity + 1) =
4. (– Infinity – Infinity) =
(Answers will be given later.)
**Doodle 2 – What is the nature of a human being?**
Fred: “I saw the nature of humanity this morning just up the street.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a human being, yes? Male or female?”
Fred: “No, I mean what I said. And I also saw the nature of dog, as well.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a dog and a person, surely?”
Fred: “No, I mean exactly what I said. And I also saw the nature of life.”
Jake: “I give up. When you’re making sense tell me what you saw”.
**Doodle 3 – What is the essence of a square?**
A University Philosophy Exam Question:
Draw in the space provided the essence of a square. Make sure it is the correct size. (Please note correct answers will get plus points but a wrong answer will get minus points towards the final mark for the paper.)
**Doodle 4 – Mathematical Set Theory**
1. Draw a big circle and on the outside round the perimeter write a description of the set of “All shapes on a 2 dimensional surface”.
2. Inside the circle just drawn draw two more circles. On the perimeter of one of the circles write “the set of all squares”. On the perimeter of the other circle write “the set of all polygons”. Inside the circle of “all polygons” draw another circle and write for the circle “the set of all regular polygon”. For each of the sets: shapes, squares, polygons and regular polygons write a definition, i.e. give four definitions in total. For the each definition refer to the definition of the circle it is within: e.g. "A regular polygon is a shape in the form of a polygon which …"; or "A square is a shape which..", etc.
**Doodle 5 – To be the same, or not to be the same, that is the question.**
Take three identically sized see-through Perspex acetate A4 sheets. Draw on each sheet in exactly the same place on each sheet a square of whatever size you want, but each square has exactly the same size.
Superimpose the three sheets so the squares precisely cover each other. How many squares do you see?
If a lecturer had produced some acetates with identical squares on and sealed them together, the only way you can know how many acetates there are is if you were to ask him.
Right? And the only way we can know how many persons there are in the Godhead is if it is revealed to us.
**Doodle 6 – And God said “Let us make man in our own image” (Genesis 1:26)**.
Consider two situations:
A. You see a living human being who has what looks like one body except with two heads – Is it one person or two?
B. You see a human body which looks like two joined bodies together but with only one head – Is it one person or two?
Man is made in the image of God. This also tells us that God is in the likeness of man.
Do any humans literally share the same mind with any other humans? If a (human) person does not share a mind with another person then how can they (we) be created in the image of God if God literally shares the same (Object of) mind with the other Persons in the Godhead?
The Father said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) Speech is governed by the mind. What does it mean when we say that literally there is only one mind in the Godhead? What does it mean for passages such as this?
**Dodoodle 7 – *Things* exist, such as people, but do *“natures”* exist?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DW8EU.png)
The Dodo in “Alice in Wonderland” represented the author himself. Lewis Carroll’s real name was Charles Dodgson. He thought it appropriate because he had a stammer. Perhaps "Dodo" was his nickname amongst his friends.
Mummy says to her little boy:
“Please put away your toys, each toy in the correct box.” And then she leaves the room. Her boy has never done this before, but he is pretty smart and can read many words already. On one box is written “Lions”, on another “Monkeys”, on another “Pigeons”, etc. There are ten boxes altogether, each box for a different animal. On the smallest box is written “Dodos”.
The boy proceeds to put lions in the “Lions” box, monkeys in the “Monkeys” box, etc.
At the end all the boxes contain the correct animals, but the box marked “Dodos” is empty.
Boy: “Mummy, can you help me? I don’t know what a Dodo is or what it looks like so I couldn’t put any in the box.”
Mummy: “Never mind dear. I will make it easier for you for tomorrow.”
The next day the box marked Dodos has a description of what a Dodo looks like:
“Dodos. A Dodo is a bird. It has wings, but it has such small wings that it cannot fly. Full grown it is about up to Mummy’s waste. It has a slightly long neck. It does not have webbed feet, but rather it has feet like a pigeon. It has a very big beak where the top half slightly overlaps the bottom. In shape it looks a bit like a fat partridge, or a turkey, but with a stubby rear.”
Mummy hoped she was describing the essence of a Dodo clearly.
“O thank you Mummy! That will greatly help me. I will be able to group all the Dodos together in the Dodo box today!”
At the end of the day the little boy was more excited to put the toys away than he been to play with them. When he finally put the toys in the boxes he was disappointed to discover he still had not found any Dodos.
Boy: “Mummy, I still couldn’t find the dodos from your description.”
Mummy: “Ah, my dear. Let me tell you more about dodos.
Dodos are extinct, which means that they once lived but there are no more dodos in the world today because men killed them all off to eat them. They died out many years ago.
I wrote on the box the nature of a dodo, and my description of it was correct, but the truth is you don’t have any dodos.
Anyway, I have something for you. From under the table she brought a big box wrapped in wrapping paper. Happy birthday!” The boy knew his birthday was very soon but hadn’t realized it was today! Of course it was a dodo, nearly life-size (?). His mother had sewed spectacles onto its beak, and two walking sticks held by the little wings to help keep it upright, and had cut out the webs between the claws.
End of Doodles.
Answers to Doodle 1 in order: 3, Infinity, “to Infinity and beyond”, “back to infinity”. The only question that really matters is question 2.
**Objects and Natures/Essences**
An Object is something that exists. That might not be a correct definition, but it is mine, for the purpose for which I am writing. An Object is an objective thing. Many Objects can be seen, many cannot be seen, (eg electrons, Higgs-Boson particles, wind, and God the Father) but they are all still Objects (please excuse what sounds demeaning here).
An Essence cannot be seen. An Essence is just a description of reality. When Mummy was writing a description of a Dodo for her son she was writing the nature of a Dodo, or it’s Essence. **The Essence or nature of a dodo is just a description of all the Objects which belong to the Set of all Dodos, and which sets them apart from all other Objects**.
The fact that dodos no longer exist makes no difference to our ability to write about the nature or essence of dodos. Even when Dodos have ceased to exist their nature/essence continues to exist: because the Nature/Essence of a Dodo is entirely independent from the Object of a Dodo. A Nature/Essence is an abstract definition of an Object. It does not describe every detail of the Objects, merely the common and distinctive features of those Objects - common to each one within the nature, and with some of the description distinctive from all the Objects outside the set.
You cannot see any kind of nature/essence in the street. You can see an *Object* which fits all the criteria for a particular nature. But you are not seeing the nature, you are seeing an Object with that kind of nature.
All the sub-descriptions of a nature are all of them also nothing more than descriptions. A description of a regular polygon is the nature/essence of a regular polygon and nothing more. It is not a real thing in itself.
A nature then is nothing more nor less than a definition of all the Objects within the Set defined by that nature. It is not in itself an Object.
**Summary**
When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A person is an individual human being.
A nature is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set.
The greater complexity with God arises because of the nature of God, that definition which describes God.
Each person of the Godhead is the exact likeness of the other two. They are identical in all except their relation to each other and to their outward works of creation, preservation and salvation. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit went to the cross to die for sinners. The Father made the heavens and the earth but it was because the Spirit was hovering over the waters and the creation was through the Word of God which is Christ. The Father didn’t hover, nor is he the Word of God, the Spirit did not speak nor is he the Word, and the Word did not create without the Father nor the Spirit.
God is omnipresent. All the persons of the Godhead are likewise omnipresent. Even when the Son of God became incarnate he was still omnipresent.
God is omniscient. Each member of the Godhead is omniscient.
God is omnipotent. God is perfect. God has an eternal plan. In each and all these and every other way the Persons of the Godhead are identical with the exception given above.
But to say that God has the same Object of mind which the three persons of the Godhead share between them is not only a denial of man being created in the image of God (no humans share one Object called mind between them), but is a category error also: a nature of a thing is merely a definition of the Objects within a set containing all the Objects within that set.
Each Person in the Godhead then has an Object called mind. They have three separate minds: but like the acetate drawings of squares you might have no idea there was more than one unless you were told.
We *have been told*, because
A) We are in God's image, and each Person in the Godhead is God. And we, none of us share the same Object called mind between us.
B) the scriptures are full of distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as in Genesis 1:1-3. Not distinctions of their abilities or any variation in their perfections, but distinctions in their operation towards their creation, and distinctions between each other: one is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. Theologians have called them persons: therefore they must be like us, having our own faculty of mind, will, knowledge, etc. They do not share any of their faculties, but they are in perfect agreement in each faculty, because the three are one God. | God's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen by all and so we are without excuse in knowing God exists as the one self-existent being.
>
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20
>
>
>
This is like seeing a sculpture and knowing that someone sculpted it. If I supposed that "[David](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo))" had just happened or had somehow always been I would be without excuse and likely deliberate in my ignorance.
I can study the sculpture David and learn some things from it about the sculptor. I can perhaps find other works of the same artist. I can learn that he is masterful at his craft, fluent in many mediums, careful and precise in his work. I can know that he was a human being but I cannot know him intimately as a person.
If I could live with Michelangelo and interact with him daily I could hear what he says and see what he does and how he does it and thus over time put together an intimate knowledge of who he is as a person. In relationship to his creations I can know of him. In relationship to his person I can know him.
The Trinity is how God can be known intimately and personally. The Father is who He is, the Son is what he says, and the Spirit is what/how He does. Because God is infinite, He is infinitely all three in unity and infinitely each of the three distinctly. Thus it is reasonable to claim that Jesus (the Word) is God and the Father is God but Jesus is not the Father, etc. |
78,877 | *To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but* **my question is not about whether the doctrine is true!** *It is about* **understanding the doctrine.** *Thus this is not a question of opinion.*
---
I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity>). According to Wikipedia:
>
> The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.
>
>
>
But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of [Modalistic Monarchianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalistic_Monarchianism), which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that [for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting.](https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html) So I see how this is [not like water](https://www.apostolictheology.org/2014/02/why-trinity-is-not-like-water-in-any-way.html).
Quoting <https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html>:
>
> Other bad analogies
>
>
> If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
>
>
> These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.
>
>
>
Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what *do* we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
**EDIT:** I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to [Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/41928/are-father-son-and-holy-spirit-explicitly-identified-as-persons-in-any-writi) I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature". | 2020/08/17 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/78877",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/50597/"
] | When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A "person" is an individual human being.
A "nature" is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set distinctly from Objects outside the group/set.
A series of doodles.
**Doodle 1 - What is a sensible way of talking about God?**
Trinitarians are all agreed:
The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. But there are not three Gods but One God only.
Please answer the following questions:
1. 1 + 1 + 1 =
2. (Infinity + Infinity + Infinity) =
3. (Infinity + Infinity + 1) =
4. (– Infinity – Infinity) =
(Answers will be given later.)
**Doodle 2 – What is the nature of a human being?**
Fred: “I saw the nature of humanity this morning just up the street.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a human being, yes? Male or female?”
Fred: “No, I mean what I said. And I also saw the nature of dog, as well.”
Jake: “You mean you saw a dog and a person, surely?”
Fred: “No, I mean exactly what I said. And I also saw the nature of life.”
Jake: “I give up. When you’re making sense tell me what you saw”.
**Doodle 3 – What is the essence of a square?**
A University Philosophy Exam Question:
Draw in the space provided the essence of a square. Make sure it is the correct size. (Please note correct answers will get plus points but a wrong answer will get minus points towards the final mark for the paper.)
**Doodle 4 – Mathematical Set Theory**
1. Draw a big circle and on the outside round the perimeter write a description of the set of “All shapes on a 2 dimensional surface”.
2. Inside the circle just drawn draw two more circles. On the perimeter of one of the circles write “the set of all squares”. On the perimeter of the other circle write “the set of all polygons”. Inside the circle of “all polygons” draw another circle and write for the circle “the set of all regular polygon”. For each of the sets: shapes, squares, polygons and regular polygons write a definition, i.e. give four definitions in total. For the each definition refer to the definition of the circle it is within: e.g. "A regular polygon is a shape in the form of a polygon which …"; or "A square is a shape which..", etc.
**Doodle 5 – To be the same, or not to be the same, that is the question.**
Take three identically sized see-through Perspex acetate A4 sheets. Draw on each sheet in exactly the same place on each sheet a square of whatever size you want, but each square has exactly the same size.
Superimpose the three sheets so the squares precisely cover each other. How many squares do you see?
If a lecturer had produced some acetates with identical squares on and sealed them together, the only way you can know how many acetates there are is if you were to ask him.
Right? And the only way we can know how many persons there are in the Godhead is if it is revealed to us.
**Doodle 6 – And God said “Let us make man in our own image” (Genesis 1:26)**.
Consider two situations:
A. You see a living human being who has what looks like one body except with two heads – Is it one person or two?
B. You see a human body which looks like two joined bodies together but with only one head – Is it one person or two?
Man is made in the image of God. This also tells us that God is in the likeness of man.
Do any humans literally share the same mind with any other humans? If a (human) person does not share a mind with another person then how can they (we) be created in the image of God if God literally shares the same (Object of) mind with the other Persons in the Godhead?
The Father said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17) Speech is governed by the mind. What does it mean when we say that literally there is only one mind in the Godhead? What does it mean for passages such as this?
**Dodoodle 7 – *Things* exist, such as people, but do *“natures”* exist?**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DW8EU.png)
The Dodo in “Alice in Wonderland” represented the author himself. Lewis Carroll’s real name was Charles Dodgson. He thought it appropriate because he had a stammer. Perhaps "Dodo" was his nickname amongst his friends.
Mummy says to her little boy:
“Please put away your toys, each toy in the correct box.” And then she leaves the room. Her boy has never done this before, but he is pretty smart and can read many words already. On one box is written “Lions”, on another “Monkeys”, on another “Pigeons”, etc. There are ten boxes altogether, each box for a different animal. On the smallest box is written “Dodos”.
The boy proceeds to put lions in the “Lions” box, monkeys in the “Monkeys” box, etc.
At the end all the boxes contain the correct animals, but the box marked “Dodos” is empty.
Boy: “Mummy, can you help me? I don’t know what a Dodo is or what it looks like so I couldn’t put any in the box.”
Mummy: “Never mind dear. I will make it easier for you for tomorrow.”
The next day the box marked Dodos has a description of what a Dodo looks like:
“Dodos. A Dodo is a bird. It has wings, but it has such small wings that it cannot fly. Full grown it is about up to Mummy’s waste. It has a slightly long neck. It does not have webbed feet, but rather it has feet like a pigeon. It has a very big beak where the top half slightly overlaps the bottom. In shape it looks a bit like a fat partridge, or a turkey, but with a stubby rear.”
Mummy hoped she was describing the essence of a Dodo clearly.
“O thank you Mummy! That will greatly help me. I will be able to group all the Dodos together in the Dodo box today!”
At the end of the day the little boy was more excited to put the toys away than he been to play with them. When he finally put the toys in the boxes he was disappointed to discover he still had not found any Dodos.
Boy: “Mummy, I still couldn’t find the dodos from your description.”
Mummy: “Ah, my dear. Let me tell you more about dodos.
Dodos are extinct, which means that they once lived but there are no more dodos in the world today because men killed them all off to eat them. They died out many years ago.
I wrote on the box the nature of a dodo, and my description of it was correct, but the truth is you don’t have any dodos.
Anyway, I have something for you. From under the table she brought a big box wrapped in wrapping paper. Happy birthday!” The boy knew his birthday was very soon but hadn’t realized it was today! Of course it was a dodo, nearly life-size (?). His mother had sewed spectacles onto its beak, and two walking sticks held by the little wings to help keep it upright, and had cut out the webs between the claws.
End of Doodles.
Answers to Doodle 1 in order: 3, Infinity, “to Infinity and beyond”, “back to infinity”. The only question that really matters is question 2.
**Objects and Natures/Essences**
An Object is something that exists. That might not be a correct definition, but it is mine, for the purpose for which I am writing. An Object is an objective thing. Many Objects can be seen, many cannot be seen, (eg electrons, Higgs-Boson particles, wind, and God the Father) but they are all still Objects (please excuse what sounds demeaning here).
An Essence cannot be seen. An Essence is just a description of reality. When Mummy was writing a description of a Dodo for her son she was writing the nature of a Dodo, or it’s Essence. **The Essence or nature of a dodo is just a description of all the Objects which belong to the Set of all Dodos, and which sets them apart from all other Objects**.
The fact that dodos no longer exist makes no difference to our ability to write about the nature or essence of dodos. Even when Dodos have ceased to exist their nature/essence continues to exist: because the Nature/Essence of a Dodo is entirely independent from the Object of a Dodo. A Nature/Essence is an abstract definition of an Object. It does not describe every detail of the Objects, merely the common and distinctive features of those Objects - common to each one within the nature, and with some of the description distinctive from all the Objects outside the set.
You cannot see any kind of nature/essence in the street. You can see an *Object* which fits all the criteria for a particular nature. But you are not seeing the nature, you are seeing an Object with that kind of nature.
All the sub-descriptions of a nature are all of them also nothing more than descriptions. A description of a regular polygon is the nature/essence of a regular polygon and nothing more. It is not a real thing in itself.
A nature then is nothing more nor less than a definition of all the Objects within the Set defined by that nature. It is not in itself an Object.
**Summary**
When theologians down the ages have used the word Person and Nature/Essence they have been using non-theological terms *as used in their usual sense*. Their intention has been to make theological matters easier to understand. They have not been using those terms in any special theological sense, else the whole purpose of using them becomes redundant. So…
A person is an individual human being.
A nature is those common elements which define all the things (Objects) in the same group/set.
The greater complexity with God arises because of the nature of God, that definition which describes God.
Each person of the Godhead is the exact likeness of the other two. They are identical in all except their relation to each other and to their outward works of creation, preservation and salvation. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit went to the cross to die for sinners. The Father made the heavens and the earth but it was because the Spirit was hovering over the waters and the creation was through the Word of God which is Christ. The Father didn’t hover, nor is he the Word of God, the Spirit did not speak nor is he the Word, and the Word did not create without the Father nor the Spirit.
God is omnipresent. All the persons of the Godhead are likewise omnipresent. Even when the Son of God became incarnate he was still omnipresent.
God is omniscient. Each member of the Godhead is omniscient.
God is omnipotent. God is perfect. God has an eternal plan. In each and all these and every other way the Persons of the Godhead are identical with the exception given above.
But to say that God has the same Object of mind which the three persons of the Godhead share between them is not only a denial of man being created in the image of God (no humans share one Object called mind between them), but is a category error also: a nature of a thing is merely a definition of the Objects within a set containing all the Objects within that set.
Each Person in the Godhead then has an Object called mind. They have three separate minds: but like the acetate drawings of squares you might have no idea there was more than one unless you were told.
We *have been told*, because
A) We are in God's image, and each Person in the Godhead is God. And we, none of us share the same Object called mind between us.
B) the scriptures are full of distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, such as in Genesis 1:1-3. Not distinctions of their abilities or any variation in their perfections, but distinctions in their operation towards their creation, and distinctions between each other: one is the Father, one is the Son, and one is the Holy Spirit. Theologians have called them persons: therefore they must be like us, having our own faculty of mind, will, knowledge, etc. They do not share any of their faculties, but they are in perfect agreement in each faculty, because the three are one God. | You, me and Fred are three different people.
But you me and Fred are all human - we share the same nature.
But you me and Fred are *different* in our characters, desires, life-history and genetic makeup.
Now God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are three different "people". They each have their own will, own understanding, own likes and dislikes.
But each one of these three people is perfect in all respects. It turns out their wills, though uniquely their own because they are people in their own right is also actually identical to the wills of the other two. In fact, because each one is perfect in knowledge, in understanding, in power, in ability, in loves and hates, infinite in all things, you can say "Whatever the Father wills, the Son also wills and the Holy Spirit wills" "Whatever the Father can do, the Son can do, and the Holy Spirit can do".
In all that makes each one a person there is absolutely no difference in their characters or abilities because they all share the same perfections of Godhead. So whereas humans differ one from another in personality and ability, the persons in the Godhead, because they are each one *perfect*, cannot possibly differ.
The perfection of Godhead belongs with each one of them, and therefore they must be the same One God in three persons.
If others see my mistakes in *underestimating* the three in one nature of the Godhead then know this is a bit of a rushed answer (sorry). Please let me know and I will update, or simply point to your comments or remove altogether.
If the Bible said there are four persons in the Godhead we would believe that. But the Bible says "Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19. |
22,775,642 | Twitter API Wrapper for .NET to manipulate (add/delete pic's) "Photos and Videos"? I used "Tweetinvi", it doesn't support that. I also looked at Linq2Twitter (<http://linqtotwitter.codeplex.com/>) and TweetSharp, doesn't look like they support it either.
<https://dev.twitter.com/docs/twitter-libraries>
Any suggestion? | 2014/04/01 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/22775642",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1664410/"
] | Tweetinvi releases > 0.9.2.x supports to send tweet with images.
If you are willing to delete a media, you need to delete the tweet it is related with. | Also please note that Tweetinvi 0.9.8.2 now support video upload.
It will be improved in the next release of Tweetinvi (0.9.9.0). |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET 4 has a [BigInteger](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger.aspx) class
>
> Represents an arbitrarily large signed integer.
>
>
> The BigInteger type is an immutable type that represents an arbitrarily large integer whose value in theory has no upper or lower bounds. This type differs from the other integral types in the .NET Framework, which have a range indicated by their MinValue and MaxValue properties.
>
>
> | .NET has a BigInteger class, but it is internal, unfortunately. However, several places have their own. You can grab an implementation from IronPython, or the one from CodeProject, or from Visual J#. I have to say, I've not tried these myself, so I don't know which one is the best.
<http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython>
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/biginteger.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163696.aspx> |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET has a BigInteger class, but it is internal, unfortunately. However, several places have their own. You can grab an implementation from IronPython, or the one from CodeProject, or from Visual J#. I have to say, I've not tried these myself, so I don't know which one is the best.
<http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython>
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/biginteger.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163696.aspx> | Mono has a public BigInteger implementation already:
<http://www.go-mono.com/docs/index.aspx?link=T:Mono.Math.BigInteger>
You can just grab the Mono.Security assembly to use it; since its a Mono class library it should be MIT licensed too. |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET has a BigInteger class, but it is internal, unfortunately. However, several places have their own. You can grab an implementation from IronPython, or the one from CodeProject, or from Visual J#. I have to say, I've not tried these myself, so I don't know which one is the best.
<http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython>
<http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/biginteger.aspx>
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163696.aspx> | Here is a link the documentation of big integer in framework 4.0
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger(VS.100).aspx> |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET 4 has a [BigInteger](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger.aspx) class
>
> Represents an arbitrarily large signed integer.
>
>
> The BigInteger type is an immutable type that represents an arbitrarily large integer whose value in theory has no upper or lower bounds. This type differs from the other integral types in the .NET Framework, which have a range indicated by their MinValue and MaxValue properties.
>
>
> | Microsoft.FSharp.Math.Types.BigInt
It can represent any integer. |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | Microsoft.FSharp.Math.Types.BigInt
It can represent any integer. | Mono has a public BigInteger implementation already:
<http://www.go-mono.com/docs/index.aspx?link=T:Mono.Math.BigInteger>
You can just grab the Mono.Security assembly to use it; since its a Mono class library it should be MIT licensed too. |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | Microsoft.FSharp.Math.Types.BigInt
It can represent any integer. | Here is a link the documentation of big integer in framework 4.0
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger(VS.100).aspx> |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET 4 has a [BigInteger](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger.aspx) class
>
> Represents an arbitrarily large signed integer.
>
>
> The BigInteger type is an immutable type that represents an arbitrarily large integer whose value in theory has no upper or lower bounds. This type differs from the other integral types in the .NET Framework, which have a range indicated by their MinValue and MaxValue properties.
>
>
> | Mono has a public BigInteger implementation already:
<http://www.go-mono.com/docs/index.aspx?link=T:Mono.Math.BigInteger>
You can just grab the Mono.Security assembly to use it; since its a Mono class library it should be MIT licensed too. |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | .NET 4 has a [BigInteger](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger.aspx) class
>
> Represents an arbitrarily large signed integer.
>
>
> The BigInteger type is an immutable type that represents an arbitrarily large integer whose value in theory has no upper or lower bounds. This type differs from the other integral types in the .NET Framework, which have a range indicated by their MinValue and MaxValue properties.
>
>
> | Here is a link the documentation of big integer in framework 4.0
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger(VS.100).aspx> |
25,375 | Does .NET come with a class capable of representing extremely large integers, such as 100 factorial? If not, what are some good third party libraries to accomplish this? | 2008/08/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/25375",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1595/"
] | Here is a link the documentation of big integer in framework 4.0
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.numerics.biginteger(VS.100).aspx> | Mono has a public BigInteger implementation already:
<http://www.go-mono.com/docs/index.aspx?link=T:Mono.Math.BigInteger>
You can just grab the Mono.Security assembly to use it; since its a Mono class library it should be MIT licensed too. |
10,725,373 | I want to learn ASP.NET MVC, at the same time creating a website project that I have in mind.
The website I'm thinking of would be like displaying a list of pictures based on user's selection, by category, etc. So there will be drill-down on the links. Obviously, the list will come from the database.
Would MVC + MySQL be a good framework for this?
I am a C# programmer with web forms. Just want to learn a new technology. | 2012/05/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10725373",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1413301/"
] | It's not the gear, it's the programmer. It doesn't really matter which DB or approach you choose, as long as it suits your needs. | Good luck on making the foray into MVC. Once you get over the initial learning curve of understanding routing, controllers, actions and viewmodels you'll see the benefits.
MySQL, and most modern database platforms (relational or otherwise) for that matter, can handle your straightforward requirements of storing simple text data and associated blob objects.
While you're in a learning mode, though, I'd also take the opportunity to learn about interacting with a cloud-based blob data store which are more appropriate for unstructured binary data. My preference is Amazon's S3, but Azure and others exist, to store the binary image data. I would still store the transactional data in the relational database and MySQL would do a fine job there. (Amazon's RDS is MySQL 5.1 in the cloud for this too if scaleability is a requirement...) |
36,220,567 | I have an azure website connect to my azure VNET via point to site connection. Its working well and I'm able to access VM's on the network from the site. However, is there a way for the VM's to access the site via the network using internal IP? I've been unable to find out what the internal IP of the my azure website is.
Cheers. | 2016/03/25 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/36220567",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1579347/"
] | [Confirmed from the comments]
Your output is timing dependant. If the parent process finishes after the children process, your output will be as expected.
If parent process finishes before the children process, output may be surprising (Before parent does not exist any more, parent id would be different). Once parent process dies (ends), init or some other **implementation-defined** process(1508 in your case), becomes the new parent of the child(ren). Such children are called orphan process(es).
According to the [exit](http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/_exit.html) man page from The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2:
>
> The parent process ID of all of the existing child processes and zombie processes of the calling process shall be set to the process ID of an implementation-defined system process. That is, these processes shall be inherited by a special system process.
>
>
>
To avoid this, ensure that parent process is alive at the time of fetching parent pid. One way to do this is to add a wait in parent (or all) process before exiting. | There is Nothing Wrong with Your Code
Its Just that your parent process exits before the child processes finish
hence they become orphan and are adopted by init or any implementation-defined process(1508 in your case).
try puttin wait(); for parent to finish the execution of all the child processes. |
1,357,676 | How do I establish an input stream over HTTP for the iPhone? My project is to incrementally pull binary data from an HTTP server to the iPhone. The pattern is to pull some data - this is a scientific app - analyze it for a while, pull more data. Rince, and repeat.
This project is a port of a desktop Java app which relies on InputStream and it's methods readInt, readString, etc. to do this.
Cheers,
Doug | 2009/08/31 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1357676",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/116169/"
] | If you want an API that more directly mirrors the Java input stream, you may want to look at the C-based CFNetwork. However, Daniel's suggestion to use the URL Loading System (NSURLRequest, NSURLConnection, etc.) is preferable because it uses Objective-C and is really easy to use in asynchronous mode. It makes more of a break from the old stdio.h functions than the simplistic java.io does, and it's well worth your time to understand it. | You can use NSURLRequest/NSURLMutableRequest along with NSURLConnection in order to achieve this here are some links <http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSURLRequest_Class/Reference/Reference.html>, <http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSURLConnection_Class/Reference/Reference.html> |
3,473,167 | Hi I am doing an assignment on ER modelling and there is a part that I'm stuck on, here is an extract:
Patient is a person who is either admitted to the hospital or is registered in an outpatient program. Each patient has a patient number (ID), name, dob, and tele. Resident patients have a Date Admitted. Each outpatient is scheduled for zero or more return visits, which have data and comments. **Each time a patient is admitted to the hospital or registered as an outpatient, they receive a new patient number.**
I can't do the last section bolded. I have attempted the question: <http://tinypic.com/r/358dus9/4>
Also if anyone can check if I've done it correctly, would be highly appreciated thanks! | 2010/08/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3473167",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/405327/"
] | Sometimes assignments also contain "information" that is pretty much immaterial.
The purpose is precisely to learn to filter out the 'real' information from the noise.
(With the caveat that there are dozens and dozens of ER dialects, and each has its own peculiarities,) ER does not have a way to express the information that "attribute x in entity y is to be autogenerated by the system.". For this reason, and as far as the actual ER modeling is concerned, your bold phrase is just noise. | I agree with Erwin on this one. I'll add that not having to have a consistent structure for the patient means that you don't have to create another table for the patient, you can just put it into the ER case directly.
Generally, this is a bad practice however. In reality, you would still have a regular patients table with identifiable patients over several visits. Then again, this is a class and as we all know, the #1 rule is not to disobey the teacher (no matter how insane it is). The real lesson here is to learn how to take requirements, **have them clarify the requirements**, explain the consequences if they don't follow your advice on how the data will be modeled and then go ahead with whatever they say as they have the final say as the client.
Depends on the course that you're taking, as well. Microsoft SQL Server/SQL Express has the autonumber setting possible, while Oracle does not feature this (although it's accomplished through [this](http://www.adp-gmbh.ch/ora/misc/autonumber.html)). Insofar as the modeling is concerned, there is no way to model that requirement specifically, as far as I know.
Entity-relationship diagrams are used to model the *relationships* and the data itself as it exists. What you're looking for is more of a [UML](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language) approach to describing the *process* in which it has data created for that field. |
28,428 | I received an update alert in the "Summary Fields" plugin. The Admin Navigation Menu has disappeared after updating. Now I get an error when I tell you to disable the plugin. The problem is that it disables other plugins. But he's giving error to Summary Fields.
There was no improvement in the problem I did with the cache and bus clearance. I'm using CiviCRM 5.9.1 when I do. I upgraded to 5.10.0, but the problem still has not improved.
Joomla 3.9.2
CiviCRM 5.10.0
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EL9mM.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ReiTr.png)
<https://lab.civicrm.org/dev/joomla/issues/8> | 2019/02/12 | [
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/questions/28428",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com",
"https://civicrm.stackexchange.com/users/6848/"
] | It's hard to tell which version of the summary fields you are having issues with but I'm guessing it's 4.0.1 which was suppose to fix the exact same issue with 4.0.0. It obviously doesn't. I filed another issue on github for the newest problem.
<https://github.com/progressivetech/net.ourpowerbase.sumfields/issues/45>
I think the fix is to change line 4 in sumfields.php
From: use CRM\_Myextension\_ExtensionUtil as E;
To: use CRM\_Sumfields\_ExtensionUtil as E; | They developer released 4.0.2 which should fix the issue. Sounds like they may have an issue with their test env. |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | In Spanish Wikipedia, [Hair clipper article](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquinilla_de_cortar_pelo) has an explanation about that. I'm Spanish and I have always seen this system:
(roughly translated)
>
> Each number means 3 mm or 1/8 inches (= 3,175 mm).
>
>
> Number 1: 3 mm - 1/8".
>
> Number 2: 6 mm - 2/8" (1/4").
>
> Number 3: 9 mm - 3/8".
>
> Number 4: 12 mm - 4/8" (1/2").
>
> Number 5: 15 mm - 5/8".
>
> Number 6: 18 mm - 6/8" (3/4").
>
> Number 7: 21 mm - 7/8".
>
>
>
Now I'm living in Italy and I bought here an electric clipper (Philips) that uses this same system.
If you went to Morocco and they used this system and nº2 is equivalent to a UK&US 5, it's pretty probable that you measure it in millimeters (maybe you already know it, anyway it is only my guess), but I have no idea what German number (12) can mean.
Maybe people from these countries can tell us how many millimeters it is "a number".
EDIT:
Unfortunately I can't speak German but I have googled for understanding UK & US notation and I have found [this web](http://menshair.about.com/od/forhaircareprofessionals/tp/Clipper_Blade_and_Clipper_Guard_Sizes.htm). It seems to be American and, although it depends of the clipper brand, as an example this is the representation:
>
> Blade - Length:
>
> 00000 - 1/125"
>
> 0000 - 1/100"
>
> 000 - 1/50"
>
> 0A - 3/64"
>
> 1 - 3/32"
>
> 1A - 1/8"
>
> 1.5 - 5/32"
>
> 2 - 1/4"
>
> 3.5 - 3/8"
>
> 3.75 - 1/2"
>
>
>
So my supposition above was wrong.
[This other page](http://www.ehow.com/facts_5004678_do-numbers-hair-clippers-mean.html), maybe American too, or perhaps international, shows a system like the Spanish one. | In the US we use the 8th inch system:
1 = 1/8 inch
2 = 2/8 inch
3 = 3/8 inch
4 = 4/8 inch
5 = 5/8 inch
6 = 6/8 inch
7 = 7/8 inch
8 = 1 inch
However, I live in Rome, Italy and when I go to a barber sometimes they use this system and sometimes they use another system, which may just be millimeters. I had a really bad surprise this way last time I went and lost all of my hair. In both the US and Rome most barbers I have seen use Wahl brand clippers. |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | In Spanish Wikipedia, [Hair clipper article](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquinilla_de_cortar_pelo) has an explanation about that. I'm Spanish and I have always seen this system:
(roughly translated)
>
> Each number means 3 mm or 1/8 inches (= 3,175 mm).
>
>
> Number 1: 3 mm - 1/8".
>
> Number 2: 6 mm - 2/8" (1/4").
>
> Number 3: 9 mm - 3/8".
>
> Number 4: 12 mm - 4/8" (1/2").
>
> Number 5: 15 mm - 5/8".
>
> Number 6: 18 mm - 6/8" (3/4").
>
> Number 7: 21 mm - 7/8".
>
>
>
Now I'm living in Italy and I bought here an electric clipper (Philips) that uses this same system.
If you went to Morocco and they used this system and nº2 is equivalent to a UK&US 5, it's pretty probable that you measure it in millimeters (maybe you already know it, anyway it is only my guess), but I have no idea what German number (12) can mean.
Maybe people from these countries can tell us how many millimeters it is "a number".
EDIT:
Unfortunately I can't speak German but I have googled for understanding UK & US notation and I have found [this web](http://menshair.about.com/od/forhaircareprofessionals/tp/Clipper_Blade_and_Clipper_Guard_Sizes.htm). It seems to be American and, although it depends of the clipper brand, as an example this is the representation:
>
> Blade - Length:
>
> 00000 - 1/125"
>
> 0000 - 1/100"
>
> 000 - 1/50"
>
> 0A - 3/64"
>
> 1 - 3/32"
>
> 1A - 1/8"
>
> 1.5 - 5/32"
>
> 2 - 1/4"
>
> 3.5 - 3/8"
>
> 3.75 - 1/2"
>
>
>
So my supposition above was wrong.
[This other page](http://www.ehow.com/facts_5004678_do-numbers-hair-clippers-mean.html), maybe American too, or perhaps international, shows a system like the Spanish one. | This is a very old question but the truth is there is no real answer
All counties have different systems, having said that all (usually) follow a simple rule - which do they use day to day? imperial or metric? If its metric its 3mm per grade and 1/8 if imperial. This is the only answer to this kind of travel problem without listing every single country
Overall the best way of dealing with with this problem is to show them a photo
If you like this please also like @machlas answer as its absolutely correct (as far as it can be) but offers no solution to the problem - so while it doesn't answer the question you should take a photo if you are unsure and think you will stay long enough to need a haircut |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | In Spanish Wikipedia, [Hair clipper article](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquinilla_de_cortar_pelo) has an explanation about that. I'm Spanish and I have always seen this system:
(roughly translated)
>
> Each number means 3 mm or 1/8 inches (= 3,175 mm).
>
>
> Number 1: 3 mm - 1/8".
>
> Number 2: 6 mm - 2/8" (1/4").
>
> Number 3: 9 mm - 3/8".
>
> Number 4: 12 mm - 4/8" (1/2").
>
> Number 5: 15 mm - 5/8".
>
> Number 6: 18 mm - 6/8" (3/4").
>
> Number 7: 21 mm - 7/8".
>
>
>
Now I'm living in Italy and I bought here an electric clipper (Philips) that uses this same system.
If you went to Morocco and they used this system and nº2 is equivalent to a UK&US 5, it's pretty probable that you measure it in millimeters (maybe you already know it, anyway it is only my guess), but I have no idea what German number (12) can mean.
Maybe people from these countries can tell us how many millimeters it is "a number".
EDIT:
Unfortunately I can't speak German but I have googled for understanding UK & US notation and I have found [this web](http://menshair.about.com/od/forhaircareprofessionals/tp/Clipper_Blade_and_Clipper_Guard_Sizes.htm). It seems to be American and, although it depends of the clipper brand, as an example this is the representation:
>
> Blade - Length:
>
> 00000 - 1/125"
>
> 0000 - 1/100"
>
> 000 - 1/50"
>
> 0A - 3/64"
>
> 1 - 3/32"
>
> 1A - 1/8"
>
> 1.5 - 5/32"
>
> 2 - 1/4"
>
> 3.5 - 3/8"
>
> 3.75 - 1/2"
>
>
>
So my supposition above was wrong.
[This other page](http://www.ehow.com/facts_5004678_do-numbers-hair-clippers-mean.html), maybe American too, or perhaps international, shows a system like the Spanish one. | What I usually do is use pictures instead. The next time you get a good haircut, ask a friend to take a few pictures of your head or take some selfies. Then every time you go to a barber shop in any country show them these pictures and they will know what to do. A lot more reliable than trying to guess the local number system :) |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | This is a very old question but the truth is there is no real answer
All counties have different systems, having said that all (usually) follow a simple rule - which do they use day to day? imperial or metric? If its metric its 3mm per grade and 1/8 if imperial. This is the only answer to this kind of travel problem without listing every single country
Overall the best way of dealing with with this problem is to show them a photo
If you like this please also like @machlas answer as its absolutely correct (as far as it can be) but offers no solution to the problem - so while it doesn't answer the question you should take a photo if you are unsure and think you will stay long enough to need a haircut | In the US we use the 8th inch system:
1 = 1/8 inch
2 = 2/8 inch
3 = 3/8 inch
4 = 4/8 inch
5 = 5/8 inch
6 = 6/8 inch
7 = 7/8 inch
8 = 1 inch
However, I live in Rome, Italy and when I go to a barber sometimes they use this system and sometimes they use another system, which may just be millimeters. I had a really bad surprise this way last time I went and lost all of my hair. In both the US and Rome most barbers I have seen use Wahl brand clippers. |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | What I usually do is use pictures instead. The next time you get a good haircut, ask a friend to take a few pictures of your head or take some selfies. Then every time you go to a barber shop in any country show them these pictures and they will know what to do. A lot more reliable than trying to guess the local number system :) | In the US we use the 8th inch system:
1 = 1/8 inch
2 = 2/8 inch
3 = 3/8 inch
4 = 4/8 inch
5 = 5/8 inch
6 = 6/8 inch
7 = 7/8 inch
8 = 1 inch
However, I live in Rome, Italy and when I go to a barber sometimes they use this system and sometimes they use another system, which may just be millimeters. I had a really bad surprise this way last time I went and lost all of my hair. In both the US and Rome most barbers I have seen use Wahl brand clippers. |
14,915 | When traveling for an extensive period of time, you may need to get a haircut in a country where you do not speak the language.
I usually get a machine haircut and just saying or showing the number (length) is easy enough (you would think).
However while in the UK I usually get a 'five' and that also works in the United States and many countries in Asia, the same length in Germany is a 'twelve'.
I just came back from a haircut here in Morocco and it seems they are using 'the Spanish system' and what seems to be the same length of hair cut was a 'two'.
Is there a system behind this madness? What do these numbers actually mean?
Is there a table somewhere online that compares the different numbers and lists the countries they are used in? | 2013/03/26 | [
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/14915",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.stackexchange.com/users/1317/"
] | What I usually do is use pictures instead. The next time you get a good haircut, ask a friend to take a few pictures of your head or take some selfies. Then every time you go to a barber shop in any country show them these pictures and they will know what to do. A lot more reliable than trying to guess the local number system :) | This is a very old question but the truth is there is no real answer
All counties have different systems, having said that all (usually) follow a simple rule - which do they use day to day? imperial or metric? If its metric its 3mm per grade and 1/8 if imperial. This is the only answer to this kind of travel problem without listing every single country
Overall the best way of dealing with with this problem is to show them a photo
If you like this please also like @machlas answer as its absolutely correct (as far as it can be) but offers no solution to the problem - so while it doesn't answer the question you should take a photo if you are unsure and think you will stay long enough to need a haircut |
23,111 | I am very confused with regards the simulation and fitting of satellite orbits.
For example, how does one compare the results of a numerically integrated force model with an orbit that has been fitted to laser ranging data??
When you numerically integrate a force model how do you compare with one of the many many many reference frames that exist that your fitted orbit will be subjected to! Any suggestions?
My understanding is: when you simulate an orbit you will generate a whole host of positions. Then to compare it to an actual orbit you must select a time epoch which will orient the coordinate system ( is this correct??). If this is correct what follows?
The model I would like to numerically integrate is only Newtonian gravity plus relativistic corrections (assuming point particles) as recommended by the IERS given by Eq. (10.12) in the [most current](https://www.iers.org/IERS/EN/DataProducts/Conventions/conventions.html) technical document/convention. | 2017/09/20 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/23111",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/21031/"
] | Comparisons between predicted orbits (numerically integrated) and fitted orbits (from tracking data) are usually done in an inertial reference frame, such as [ICRF](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Celestial_Reference_Frame) or [Mean of J2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial). Within these frames, the orbit comparison can take several forms, such as point by point comparisons, or comparisons of the [orbital elements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements) | First, you need to make sure both results (simulation results and laser ranging data) are converted into the same coordinate system. This is usually chosen as an inertial frame, like ECI.
You can compare two orbits in ECI frame but you will only have one meaningful information from that: the magnitude of the error. However, in most papers, you will see another coordinate transformation to a satellite-based coordinate system is done to get more meaningful results. RSW and NTW systems are most common for this practice since most modeling differences create visible biases in those coordinate elements.
Do not forget to take into account of the differences that are caused by coordinate transformations. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | A couple of things here. Being open space people peeking at your monitors is not uncommon. Sometimes that even happens just because there is something shiny moving around. Everyone needs to switch off once in a while. If your manager is a normal person, he should understand that people are not robots and do not work for 8 hours straight.
Now what you can try. Without being rude, when he checks your monitors you can look back at him and optionally ask if you can help him. He will either say something or feel uncomfortable for doing so.
On the other hand when you are working on a task you can ask questions and involve him a little bit, just to reinforce that fact that you are active on your work. If he isn't appropriate for discussion, then bring a coworker to talk work stuff. I would advise you to stay away from social network browsing. Check networks on your phone while not on your desk.
I see no problem reading anything work related that will improve your skills or will help you with current or future tasks. He should know that and be comfortable with it.
*EDIT:* Now that you added you are an intern, you would want to fill your time with learning your infrastructure, processes, tools or whatever you are expected to know about your job. Maybe you are not given a full 8 hours of tasks, just for that reason - to check if you are interested in your job, without having people assigning tasks for you. | First of all you cannot stop him from checking if you are working from time to time (after all it is a part of his job). If you are on facebook or reading an e-book when you are supposed to work he has the right to tell you off.
Personnally, what I would do is talk to him about it and define precise break periods when you can do whatever you want on your computer and work periods when you should be working (if that doesn't already exist in your workplace).
That way, you won't feel guilty going on facebook when you have the time off but you will have to be serious about your work during working time.
On a final note, if you want to make him look at your screen less, you could make it more complicated for him to peer at it. Anti-glare and privacy screens for your computer screen do exist, but you would have to justify to your boss why you use them and why you want to hide your screen from others. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | >
> Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working
> there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with
> the situation?
>
>
>
Most folks find that uneasiness in an open office setup goes away after a while. Basically, you eventually get used to it.
Depending on the culture/structure there may be a few things you can do.
Sometimes, reorganizing your individual workspace can help. Moving your keyboard and monitor around can sometimes give you a better angle or line of sight and make it feel less like you are being scrutinized. Some folks like to be looking toward a window; others like to be looking away from a window.
Some folks find that customizing your space with personal items makes it feel more comfortable. Pictures, a lamp, etc - these can make it feel more like "your space" and less like "out in the open".
In some shops workers wear headphones or earbuds and listen to music. In more open settings I found that this helped me concentrate on my work more and more easily ignore those around me.
In some shops, getting up and getting some water or coffee/tea provides the short mental break needed to help cope well.
But often, it's just a matter of gradually getting comfortable with the work setting as it exists.
Give it some time, and perhaps try a few of these suggestions.
*(Personally, I abhor an open office setting. I think it's a terrible thing to do to knowledge workers who need to be able to concentrate to be effective at their work. Still, it's what many companies do these days, so sometimes you just have to make the most of it.)* | First of all you cannot stop him from checking if you are working from time to time (after all it is a part of his job). If you are on facebook or reading an e-book when you are supposed to work he has the right to tell you off.
Personnally, what I would do is talk to him about it and define precise break periods when you can do whatever you want on your computer and work periods when you should be working (if that doesn't already exist in your workplace).
That way, you won't feel guilty going on facebook when you have the time off but you will have to be serious about your work during working time.
On a final note, if you want to make him look at your screen less, you could make it more complicated for him to peer at it. Anti-glare and privacy screens for your computer screen do exist, but you would have to justify to your boss why you use them and why you want to hide your screen from others. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | As an internee, you can reasonably expect to be monitored during your internship. If you can demonstrate that you're hitting or exceeding the targets for your work, I don't think that some coffee-break browsing could be punished.
As always, the content of your browsing should be appropriate (so more news/research, less cat videos). | First of all you cannot stop him from checking if you are working from time to time (after all it is a part of his job). If you are on facebook or reading an e-book when you are supposed to work he has the right to tell you off.
Personnally, what I would do is talk to him about it and define precise break periods when you can do whatever you want on your computer and work periods when you should be working (if that doesn't already exist in your workplace).
That way, you won't feel guilty going on facebook when you have the time off but you will have to be serious about your work during working time.
On a final note, if you want to make him look at your screen less, you could make it more complicated for him to peer at it. Anti-glare and privacy screens for your computer screen do exist, but you would have to justify to your boss why you use them and why you want to hide your screen from others. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | As a matter of fact, an intern is more than another subject to regular checks on his work. That said, intern or not, open office or not, I think it is fair to sometimes get off the path of actual productive work to read or spend time on the web as long as the work that is assigned to you is done correctly and on time. I personally do it without any shame when I can afford it, but know I have to keep on deadlines.
Now, looking at a longer term perspective, I would suggest that you let your employer know you're done with your assignment and could take a new one. First it shows your motivation, secondly it can lead to you learning even more which is a very important point of an internship, and finally if your employer doesn't answer to your request for more work, it is even more fair that you do other things, which I would suggest to be more of the self-learning side than checking on your friend's Facebook.
If you're worried about being given monkey tasks just to keep you busy or if the unoccupied periods are usually very short (like when you get assigned daily tasks but end up finishing 30 minutes earlier on a regular basis), you could also think proactively on tasks you could be doing and propose that to your employer. You will quickly notice that being useful is more rewarding than being paid for killing time... | First of all you cannot stop him from checking if you are working from time to time (after all it is a part of his job). If you are on facebook or reading an e-book when you are supposed to work he has the right to tell you off.
Personnally, what I would do is talk to him about it and define precise break periods when you can do whatever you want on your computer and work periods when you should be working (if that doesn't already exist in your workplace).
That way, you won't feel guilty going on facebook when you have the time off but you will have to be serious about your work during working time.
On a final note, if you want to make him look at your screen less, you could make it more complicated for him to peer at it. Anti-glare and privacy screens for your computer screen do exist, but you would have to justify to your boss why you use them and why you want to hide your screen from others. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | >
> Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working
> there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with
> the situation?
>
>
>
Most folks find that uneasiness in an open office setup goes away after a while. Basically, you eventually get used to it.
Depending on the culture/structure there may be a few things you can do.
Sometimes, reorganizing your individual workspace can help. Moving your keyboard and monitor around can sometimes give you a better angle or line of sight and make it feel less like you are being scrutinized. Some folks like to be looking toward a window; others like to be looking away from a window.
Some folks find that customizing your space with personal items makes it feel more comfortable. Pictures, a lamp, etc - these can make it feel more like "your space" and less like "out in the open".
In some shops workers wear headphones or earbuds and listen to music. In more open settings I found that this helped me concentrate on my work more and more easily ignore those around me.
In some shops, getting up and getting some water or coffee/tea provides the short mental break needed to help cope well.
But often, it's just a matter of gradually getting comfortable with the work setting as it exists.
Give it some time, and perhaps try a few of these suggestions.
*(Personally, I abhor an open office setting. I think it's a terrible thing to do to knowledge workers who need to be able to concentrate to be effective at their work. Still, it's what many companies do these days, so sometimes you just have to make the most of it.)* | A couple of things here. Being open space people peeking at your monitors is not uncommon. Sometimes that even happens just because there is something shiny moving around. Everyone needs to switch off once in a while. If your manager is a normal person, he should understand that people are not robots and do not work for 8 hours straight.
Now what you can try. Without being rude, when he checks your monitors you can look back at him and optionally ask if you can help him. He will either say something or feel uncomfortable for doing so.
On the other hand when you are working on a task you can ask questions and involve him a little bit, just to reinforce that fact that you are active on your work. If he isn't appropriate for discussion, then bring a coworker to talk work stuff. I would advise you to stay away from social network browsing. Check networks on your phone while not on your desk.
I see no problem reading anything work related that will improve your skills or will help you with current or future tasks. He should know that and be comfortable with it.
*EDIT:* Now that you added you are an intern, you would want to fill your time with learning your infrastructure, processes, tools or whatever you are expected to know about your job. Maybe you are not given a full 8 hours of tasks, just for that reason - to check if you are interested in your job, without having people assigning tasks for you. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | As a matter of fact, an intern is more than another subject to regular checks on his work. That said, intern or not, open office or not, I think it is fair to sometimes get off the path of actual productive work to read or spend time on the web as long as the work that is assigned to you is done correctly and on time. I personally do it without any shame when I can afford it, but know I have to keep on deadlines.
Now, looking at a longer term perspective, I would suggest that you let your employer know you're done with your assignment and could take a new one. First it shows your motivation, secondly it can lead to you learning even more which is a very important point of an internship, and finally if your employer doesn't answer to your request for more work, it is even more fair that you do other things, which I would suggest to be more of the self-learning side than checking on your friend's Facebook.
If you're worried about being given monkey tasks just to keep you busy or if the unoccupied periods are usually very short (like when you get assigned daily tasks but end up finishing 30 minutes earlier on a regular basis), you could also think proactively on tasks you could be doing and propose that to your employer. You will quickly notice that being useful is more rewarding than being paid for killing time... | A couple of things here. Being open space people peeking at your monitors is not uncommon. Sometimes that even happens just because there is something shiny moving around. Everyone needs to switch off once in a while. If your manager is a normal person, he should understand that people are not robots and do not work for 8 hours straight.
Now what you can try. Without being rude, when he checks your monitors you can look back at him and optionally ask if you can help him. He will either say something or feel uncomfortable for doing so.
On the other hand when you are working on a task you can ask questions and involve him a little bit, just to reinforce that fact that you are active on your work. If he isn't appropriate for discussion, then bring a coworker to talk work stuff. I would advise you to stay away from social network browsing. Check networks on your phone while not on your desk.
I see no problem reading anything work related that will improve your skills or will help you with current or future tasks. He should know that and be comfortable with it.
*EDIT:* Now that you added you are an intern, you would want to fill your time with learning your infrastructure, processes, tools or whatever you are expected to know about your job. Maybe you are not given a full 8 hours of tasks, just for that reason - to check if you are interested in your job, without having people assigning tasks for you. |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | >
> Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working
> there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with
> the situation?
>
>
>
Most folks find that uneasiness in an open office setup goes away after a while. Basically, you eventually get used to it.
Depending on the culture/structure there may be a few things you can do.
Sometimes, reorganizing your individual workspace can help. Moving your keyboard and monitor around can sometimes give you a better angle or line of sight and make it feel less like you are being scrutinized. Some folks like to be looking toward a window; others like to be looking away from a window.
Some folks find that customizing your space with personal items makes it feel more comfortable. Pictures, a lamp, etc - these can make it feel more like "your space" and less like "out in the open".
In some shops workers wear headphones or earbuds and listen to music. In more open settings I found that this helped me concentrate on my work more and more easily ignore those around me.
In some shops, getting up and getting some water or coffee/tea provides the short mental break needed to help cope well.
But often, it's just a matter of gradually getting comfortable with the work setting as it exists.
Give it some time, and perhaps try a few of these suggestions.
*(Personally, I abhor an open office setting. I think it's a terrible thing to do to knowledge workers who need to be able to concentrate to be effective at their work. Still, it's what many companies do these days, so sometimes you just have to make the most of it.)* | As an internee, you can reasonably expect to be monitored during your internship. If you can demonstrate that you're hitting or exceeding the targets for your work, I don't think that some coffee-break browsing could be punished.
As always, the content of your browsing should be appropriate (so more news/research, less cat videos). |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | As a matter of fact, an intern is more than another subject to regular checks on his work. That said, intern or not, open office or not, I think it is fair to sometimes get off the path of actual productive work to read or spend time on the web as long as the work that is assigned to you is done correctly and on time. I personally do it without any shame when I can afford it, but know I have to keep on deadlines.
Now, looking at a longer term perspective, I would suggest that you let your employer know you're done with your assignment and could take a new one. First it shows your motivation, secondly it can lead to you learning even more which is a very important point of an internship, and finally if your employer doesn't answer to your request for more work, it is even more fair that you do other things, which I would suggest to be more of the self-learning side than checking on your friend's Facebook.
If you're worried about being given monkey tasks just to keep you busy or if the unoccupied periods are usually very short (like when you get assigned daily tasks but end up finishing 30 minutes earlier on a regular basis), you could also think proactively on tasks you could be doing and propose that to your employer. You will quickly notice that being useful is more rewarding than being paid for killing time... | >
> Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working
> there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with
> the situation?
>
>
>
Most folks find that uneasiness in an open office setup goes away after a while. Basically, you eventually get used to it.
Depending on the culture/structure there may be a few things you can do.
Sometimes, reorganizing your individual workspace can help. Moving your keyboard and monitor around can sometimes give you a better angle or line of sight and make it feel less like you are being scrutinized. Some folks like to be looking toward a window; others like to be looking away from a window.
Some folks find that customizing your space with personal items makes it feel more comfortable. Pictures, a lamp, etc - these can make it feel more like "your space" and less like "out in the open".
In some shops workers wear headphones or earbuds and listen to music. In more open settings I found that this helped me concentrate on my work more and more easily ignore those around me.
In some shops, getting up and getting some water or coffee/tea provides the short mental break needed to help cope well.
But often, it's just a matter of gradually getting comfortable with the work setting as it exists.
Give it some time, and perhaps try a few of these suggestions.
*(Personally, I abhor an open office setting. I think it's a terrible thing to do to knowledge workers who need to be able to concentrate to be effective at their work. Still, it's what many companies do these days, so sometimes you just have to make the most of it.)* |
95,901 | Internee here- I'm all up for a more open plan in an office, but I feel a bit under pressure with my boss sitting beside or behind me. And sometimes peering at my screen to look at what I'm doing.
It makes me uncomfortable while I'm working; and makes me feel guilty or like they would use my actions against me in an appraisal while I don't have work and do something else( i.e: read an e-book or scroll through internet).
Accepting a workplace's culture and structure is a part of working there. So of course I can't change my desk; What do I do to cope with the situation? | 2017/07/26 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/95901",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/74611/"
] | As a matter of fact, an intern is more than another subject to regular checks on his work. That said, intern or not, open office or not, I think it is fair to sometimes get off the path of actual productive work to read or spend time on the web as long as the work that is assigned to you is done correctly and on time. I personally do it without any shame when I can afford it, but know I have to keep on deadlines.
Now, looking at a longer term perspective, I would suggest that you let your employer know you're done with your assignment and could take a new one. First it shows your motivation, secondly it can lead to you learning even more which is a very important point of an internship, and finally if your employer doesn't answer to your request for more work, it is even more fair that you do other things, which I would suggest to be more of the self-learning side than checking on your friend's Facebook.
If you're worried about being given monkey tasks just to keep you busy or if the unoccupied periods are usually very short (like when you get assigned daily tasks but end up finishing 30 minutes earlier on a regular basis), you could also think proactively on tasks you could be doing and propose that to your employer. You will quickly notice that being useful is more rewarding than being paid for killing time... | As an internee, you can reasonably expect to be monitored during your internship. If you can demonstrate that you're hitting or exceeding the targets for your work, I don't think that some coffee-break browsing could be punished.
As always, the content of your browsing should be appropriate (so more news/research, less cat videos). |
4,269 | Does building a vessel such that it can maintain a breathable atmosphere in a vacuum (like all our manned space vessels) also makes this vessel watertight?
If not, why? | 2014/04/14 | [
"https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/4269",
"https://space.stackexchange.com",
"https://space.stackexchange.com/users/122/"
] | At a first glance yes. If the inner crew compartments with breathable atmosphere are supposed to be air-tight to the pressure difference of at least one 1 atmosphere, and the hull is a rigid structure that's not meant to expand with change of pressure to within this 1 atmosphere, then it's fairly reasonable to assume the same pressure difference could be sustained by it in the opposite direction (where outside pressure is larger to the inner pressure for up to the same 1 atmosphere, or ~ 100 kPa, or ~ 14,7 psi, or the depth of ~ 10 m of water at sea-level Earth, where the Earth's atmosphere itself would equalize the pressure and the 10 m of water would increase external pressure to plus one atmosphere).
However, this is not necessarily the case, and vessel could be constructed to withstand a positive pressure (where inside pressure is bigger) better than the negative pressure (where the outside pressure is bigger), or even intentionally designed to expand with increased internal pressure, like some inflatable / expandable modules, e.g. Bigelow Aerospace's [Genesis 1](http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-1.php) and [Genesis 2](http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis-2.php) expandable space habitat technology. These would clearly collapse under larger external than internal pressure.
Another concern with diving space vessels into the waters, if they're not designed for it, could be exposed electrical wiring, water soluble or water reactive materials used on its exterior, or pressure of water flow (waves, currents, vortices,...) damaging and/or bending equipment. And if their buoyancy wouldn't stabilize at the depth that it could still withstand external pressure, it could sink beyond its crash depth.
So your space faring vessel could experience problems due to the change of direction of the positive to negative pressure, and the properties of the water body, such as density, electrical conductivity, being a solvent to some materials, even facilitate corrosion and lose heat faster due to convective heat transfer. And the mass of this water your vessel would displace (buoyancy) would have to be roughly equal to the mass of your vessel, to prevent it sinking too deep and into external pressure it couldn't withstand any longer and implode. All of which are problems that are largely absent (or altogether different) than in the vacuum of outer space.
So in reality, no. Not unless they're specifically designed to land on water, like e.g. [the crew capsule of the Soyuz spacecraft](https://space.stackexchange.com/q/2757/49). | Axiomatically, yes, an airtight craft is also watertight, since the molecules of water are less able to flow than those of air.
Current spacecraft are all rated for at least 1 bar (100 kPa) internal over external pressure difference. All are generally considered airtight (though all leak slightly).
A terminology clarification: by overpressure, I mean an internal pressure higher than the external pressure; by underpressure, I mean the internal pressure is lower than the external. In the differential I use + to mean greater internal and - to mean greater external.
There are, however, additional considerations. Direction of water resistance, direction of pressure, and duration of exposure all are relevant considerations.
Since spacecraft at surface generally are at +0 Bar relative (i.e.: 1 bar external and 1 bar internal) pressure, and at altitude are at +1 Bar, the bracing is all set to keep the pressure in. Certain fittings have in fact failed with less than -1 bar underpressure on apollo capsules. Note that water pressure rapidly climbs with depth in 1G - each 10m depth generates roughly 1 bar external pressure. Any Apollo, Gemini, or Mercury capsule was supposed to be able to withstand 0.5 bar under pressure for a short period during landing, and the capsule was held afloat by large balloons. And, with a singular exception, this worked. And the Apollo capsule flown was capable of ±0.8 Bar relative during pressure tests.
Further, many systems on the spacecraft are external to the pressure vessel, and while shielded from ram air pressures on launch, are not shielded from ambient static air pressure. Some of these are potentially damaged by water in quantity.
Pressure vessels designed for keeping water in have to deal with a mass thousands of times greater than those for air. So, an internal water environment capsule (say, for dolphins) would need to be braced differently for acceleration, and thus an air-design capsule cannot safely be considered watertight during launch, even if it would hold the full mass internally on the pad. Likewise, for movement through water, the forces are considerably higher.
One further consideration is that some of the seals are not viable for water environments (internal or external) except for very short durations due to chemical considerations.
So, practically, a spacecraft is not a viable submersible watercraft as an axiomatic condition, but is capable of preventing water intrusions within a reasonable range of exposures. |
82,316 | Hi i already have worked with the AVR and the Cortex-M for some purpose but now i need to a most powerful processor. So, i think the FPGA or Cortex-A is suitable but i can't compare these both because as you know, the FPGA is a field-programmable gate array processor but the Cortex-A is a RISC processor. well, now, i confused! Which is better really for high speed? and which has a good future?
i hope to get a good answer. | 2013/09/14 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/82316",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/28945/"
] | I don't know what size the images are or what camera are you trying to interface and what are your timing requirements but if you need to take high res images at high speed a FPGA should do the work but:
* A [FPGA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array%20%22%22) is NOT a proccessor
* You can't program a FPGA as you do with processors
* Interfacing a camera with a RGB screen at high speed is not a simple task
Other alternatives are some ARM processor that has interface to cameras and displays. | FPGA is massively fine-grain processor. It can emulate millions of logic gates in parallel. But, because your logic circuit is simulated/emulated rather than native/physical, it runs 10x slower than true ASIC (eg. ARM). So, if you want to program a single sequential process (I call it control-dominated computation), then you use a CPU. If you need to simulate a circuit of many tiny gates (they are also processes but very tiny and large in numbers) then you need an FPGA. If you can parallelize your task into a huge number of tiny processes then you need FPGA. If you have 1, 2 or 3 processes (how much cores do you have in your processor), take CPU. Basically, you need an FPGA when you need to simulate a logical (aka digital) circuit. The hint is: if you have its description in HDL, then you need and FPGA. If you have a C/ASM program, look for ARM.
If you did not need the high performance then, for instance, you plan 100 mln single logic operations every second and no more, then utilize ARM. On the other hand, if you need kilos and millions logic operations at every clock cycle (millions of cycles per second) then you need FPGA. |
121,045 | I'm basically looking for a way to execute an application when my laptop transitions to battery power and, similarly, when it returns to AC.
Is there a built-in hook in Windows or a third-party application that will allow me to respond to such events?
**EDIT**
I've looked into the TaskScheduler trying to fire off a task on a "power" event, but no event seems to be logged when switching to battery. | 2010/03/17 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/121045",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/30269/"
] | I wrote an application (<http://batterysaver.codeplex.com/>) that will listen for a power mode change message and execute actions based on an XML configuration.
If someone else can use it, or extend it, then awesome. If there's something better, then please post it. | Combine Task Scheduler and Powershell to do this.
To achieve the Powershell script check out Chris85's answer:
<https://stackoverflow.com/a/62222256/1040683>
Then create the Task in the Scheduler:
<https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/6coxgp/how_to_run_a_task_when_plugged_into_ac_or_losing/> |
20,708 | I've recently taken a job with a new employer. My understanding when accepting this position was that I would be working as a Java developer, but my manager has assigned me to a .net developer role. I am interested in Java, and not .net development. I asked my manager to move me to a Java developer role, but he told me that I had to wait six months first.
How can I handle this situation professionally? | 2014/03/17 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20708",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/17398/"
] | If you feel that this is a [bait-and-switch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch) operation, and you're uncomfortable with it, then pursue new employment immediately.
Furthermore, if you've only been with this job for a few days or weeks, then don't feel obligated to even mention it at interviews.
If you've had the job for a bit longer, then be upfront with interviewers and tell them that the job was not what you expected.
---
[@HLGEM's answer](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/93/hlgem) is incorrect to the extent that you're never under any inherent obligation to stick with a job. Bear in mind that the following pieces of advice are *not* mutually exclusive:
1. If a job isn't helping you advance, then seek new employment immediately. If you don't care about your career development, then nobody else will.
2. On the other hand, try not to move around too much because employers will doubt your ability to deliver and finish.
If you're mindful of both, then you'll be just fine. | You cannot expect that business needs will not change. If he needs you to work in .net, that is where he needs you. How you respond is to do what you are being paid to do. You can tell him that you would prefer to work in Java and ask him if he can find a Java project for you, but until he does, then do the other work to the best of your ability and without complaint. If you do a bad job on the .Net work or become known as a prima donna who complains about everything, they have no incentive to reward you by giving the work that you would prefer.
Through the years I have worked with a lot of projects that weren't my first choice (and sometimes with people I disliked). That is just how business is. The needs of the business take precedence and the needs are fluid, you need to adapt to what the need of the moment is. And you know what, I learned a lot that came in useful on later more interesting projects from the ones I didn't want to be on at first or from the people I didn't want to work with.
An attitude that 'you only want to work on what you want to work on' is a career limiting move. Get rid of it now. |
20,708 | I've recently taken a job with a new employer. My understanding when accepting this position was that I would be working as a Java developer, but my manager has assigned me to a .net developer role. I am interested in Java, and not .net development. I asked my manager to move me to a Java developer role, but he told me that I had to wait six months first.
How can I handle this situation professionally? | 2014/03/17 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20708",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/17398/"
] | I was exactly in the same situation a couple of years back. I waited for a couple of months in the new role and when I have realized that I will not be able to enjoy the work anymore then I moved to one of my dream jobs at another firm. Now I am very happy and enjoying both my work/personal life to the fullest.
I think that it is unprofessional to assign work that is not what agreed during the hiring process (interview). If you don't enjoy the work then probably it is difficult to excel in that position. It will also affect your personal life. It is better for you to start looking for your interesting positions in the same firm or at a different one.
I totally agree with @Jim's answer. | You cannot expect that business needs will not change. If he needs you to work in .net, that is where he needs you. How you respond is to do what you are being paid to do. You can tell him that you would prefer to work in Java and ask him if he can find a Java project for you, but until he does, then do the other work to the best of your ability and without complaint. If you do a bad job on the .Net work or become known as a prima donna who complains about everything, they have no incentive to reward you by giving the work that you would prefer.
Through the years I have worked with a lot of projects that weren't my first choice (and sometimes with people I disliked). That is just how business is. The needs of the business take precedence and the needs are fluid, you need to adapt to what the need of the moment is. And you know what, I learned a lot that came in useful on later more interesting projects from the ones I didn't want to be on at first or from the people I didn't want to work with.
An attitude that 'you only want to work on what you want to work on' is a career limiting move. Get rid of it now. |
20,708 | I've recently taken a job with a new employer. My understanding when accepting this position was that I would be working as a Java developer, but my manager has assigned me to a .net developer role. I am interested in Java, and not .net development. I asked my manager to move me to a Java developer role, but he told me that I had to wait six months first.
How can I handle this situation professionally? | 2014/03/17 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/20708",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/17398/"
] | If you feel that this is a [bait-and-switch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch) operation, and you're uncomfortable with it, then pursue new employment immediately.
Furthermore, if you've only been with this job for a few days or weeks, then don't feel obligated to even mention it at interviews.
If you've had the job for a bit longer, then be upfront with interviewers and tell them that the job was not what you expected.
---
[@HLGEM's answer](https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/93/hlgem) is incorrect to the extent that you're never under any inherent obligation to stick with a job. Bear in mind that the following pieces of advice are *not* mutually exclusive:
1. If a job isn't helping you advance, then seek new employment immediately. If you don't care about your career development, then nobody else will.
2. On the other hand, try not to move around too much because employers will doubt your ability to deliver and finish.
If you're mindful of both, then you'll be just fine. | I was exactly in the same situation a couple of years back. I waited for a couple of months in the new role and when I have realized that I will not be able to enjoy the work anymore then I moved to one of my dream jobs at another firm. Now I am very happy and enjoying both my work/personal life to the fullest.
I think that it is unprofessional to assign work that is not what agreed during the hiring process (interview). If you don't enjoy the work then probably it is difficult to excel in that position. It will also affect your personal life. It is better for you to start looking for your interesting positions in the same firm or at a different one.
I totally agree with @Jim's answer. |
4,333,065 | is there any way to use ArrayCollection (from mx.collections.\*) in Flash CS3/4/5? How? | 2010/12/02 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/4333065",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/527679/"
] | Generally speaking — no.
There are some exceptions, Opera has a feature called "[Unite](http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/an-introduction-to-opera-unite/)" which allows it to run a web server (this is not turned on by default!) as well as acting as a user agent. That wouldn't allow you to send a response to a request that hadn't been made though. | Most web browsers don't have a web server and they are unable to accept HTTP requests. Maybe there is an extension for Firefox, but that's not a typical use case.
Depending on what you are trying to achieve, using Comet or long polling could work for you. |
119,337 | My garage door is old and falling apart, plus the driveway at the threshold is uneven. There are big gaps at either end both along the side and bottom. What is the best way to seal these up? I can't afford a new door right now.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6i3Mq.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ApvmI.jpg)
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/N6Rkn1BhfdsKCxDW2>
<https://photos.app.goo.gl/ikK3Ek98pqcMwixR2> | 2017/07/13 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/119337",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/72004/"
] | There's a problem. Rodents can get through tiny gaps. Doors generally need gaps around them.
Some ideas -
Remove whatever it is that is attracting rodents. Tidy up the floor. Put edible stuff into metal containers (I use metal bins with metal lids that I weigh down with heavy bricks).
Get a cat and fit a cat-flap. Cats love chasing rodents away.
Graft new wood on around the edges of the doors using glue, dowels, screws or whatever methods and hardware you have to hand. This means taking the doors off after scribing the required shape onto some the donor timber. If an enlarged door would scrape the ground when opening, you'd have to lower the ground or abandon this idea.
Have the door close against a fixed frame. You would probably need a rubber sealing strip or equivalent to close up gaps. Rodents chew through rubber. | I'd go at it with some blocking and weatherstripping and try to shim the bottom of the door to mate flush with the floor.
There's company that makes specialized rodent proofing materials, you may be able to get by with a door sweep that you put in and adjust it to sit flush to the floor when the door is down.
<https://buyxcluder.com/xcluderr-residential-pest-control-door-sweep.html> |
19,516 | Gravy is a big deal in my house, when it comes to holiday meals, so I usually make extra. A day or two ahead of time, I roast some extra turkey parts (drumsticks, wings, backs, and/or necks), then boil the heck out of them (2-4 hours). The idea here is to create a flavorful turkey stock, which would be full of gelatin.
When I try turning this turkey stock (and pan drippings from the roasted bird) in gravy, I had to add 3 to 4 times the amount of cornstarch to get a good gravy consistency. The cornstartch wasn't "Bad", since I ran through this procedure three times with two different containers of cornstarch. I've used cornstarch in the past to thicken other things, and I know it continues to thicken as it cools, but I still think I used an increadible amount.
Does cornstarch work less well in the presence of gelatin? | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958/"
] | I suspect that the biggest problem here is that your brine isn't anywhere *close* to being strong enough. [Cooks Illustrated](http://www.cooksillustrated.com/images/document/howto/ND01_ISBriningbasics.pdf) has a good guide to the entire process but in a nutshell:
* Sea salt is expensive and inefficient for brining; the impurities actually make it more difficult to dissolve and disperse properly. Kosher salt is generally recommended, although table salt is also fine.
* A typical brine is 1/4 cup table salt and 1/2 cup sugar per quart, which translates to about 70 g and 140 g respectively per L. For very high-heat methods (grilling/broiling), you halve the amounts. Also, for kosher salt you need to double the volume (no change if measuring by weight). Even the lower, high-heat cooking concentration is almost twice as concentrated as what you're doing.
* You also need to scale the amount of brine with the weight of the bird itself. The rule of thumb is 1 quart or L per pound (2.2 kg) of meat. For a whole chicken, which is generally around 6 or 7 pounds, 1.5 L of brine is nowhere near enough, especially if you're brining in a pot as opposed to a bag (does your 1.5 L even cover the chicken?).
* It doesn't really matter if you butcher the chicken first (although most people don't). You're exposing slightly more surface area that way but not really enough to matter.
* Make sure you are actually dissolving all the crystals! From what you're describing, you're getting high concentrations of salt in some areas and none in others. That means you didn't get proper dispersion. You really need to make sure that **all** of the salt (and sugar, if you're using any) is completely dissolved, otherwise you don't have a "brine", you have water with a bunch of little piles of salt. Some people will suggest heating or even boiling your brine to ensure proper dissolution; just make sure you let it cool off afterward if you do this, *before* submerging the bird.
In answer to your specific questions:
1. The container should be well-sealed to prevent evaporation, not to mention off-odours in your fridge. However, I've used pots with loose-fitting lids and had no problems. It doesn't make a huge difference as far as the efficacy of the brine.
2. Fridge temperature is ideal. Do not even *think* about using room-temperature water, that is highly unsafe for storing raw meat for 6-8 hours at a time.
3. As long as you don't overcrowd the vessel and do disperse the crystals properly, the actual amount of space is not a major issue. If it's exposed, it's exposed.
4. Longer than 12 hours is not recommended. Actually, according to CI, longer than 8 hours is not recommended. Don't overdo it - you're brining, not marinating.
5. No matter how you cook any piece of meat, it will give up a certain amount of water and therefore a certain amount of salt (from the brine). Left unstated is why you would even consider boiling a brined chicken; brining is primarily a technique for dry-heat cooking (roasting/grilling), and if you want to boil/poach/braise/whatever then you should be focusing more on flavouring the cooking liquid than the meat itself. I wouldn't bother brining if you're making chicken soup, there are better ways to flavour that. | @Aaronut provided an excellent answer addressing all of your points about brining, but as his comment on #5 indicates **it doesn't sound like brining is your problem.** If your method of cooking the chicken is boiling it **for a soup** then **brining isn't necessary.** The purpose of brining is to keep the meat from getting dried out during cooking, which will not happen if it is submerged in broth and simmered gently until done. A secondary purpose of brining is to bring out flavors, but again in a soup your broth should have salt, vegetables, and spices, so the brine is unnecessary.
Brining does not cook the meat, nor will it significantly change cooking speed (whatever the cooking method), so if "there are raw looking bits in the leg pieces" you do need to cook it longer, but your brine is not the problem. If I'm misinterpreting, please do edit your question to indicate (a) your cooking method, (b) *how* the results are disappointing (flavor, saltiness, done-ness, texture, moisture level?). |
19,516 | Gravy is a big deal in my house, when it comes to holiday meals, so I usually make extra. A day or two ahead of time, I roast some extra turkey parts (drumsticks, wings, backs, and/or necks), then boil the heck out of them (2-4 hours). The idea here is to create a flavorful turkey stock, which would be full of gelatin.
When I try turning this turkey stock (and pan drippings from the roasted bird) in gravy, I had to add 3 to 4 times the amount of cornstarch to get a good gravy consistency. The cornstartch wasn't "Bad", since I ran through this procedure three times with two different containers of cornstarch. I've used cornstarch in the past to thicken other things, and I know it continues to thicken as it cools, but I still think I used an increadible amount.
Does cornstarch work less well in the presence of gelatin? | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958/"
] | The brine in the above scenario is too weak however even if you made it stronger you would not see the results you wanted. The reason for this is because brines do not work when cooking soups because the salt comes out with boiling. Brines work for dry heat methods e,g grilling, roasting.
The reason you are seeing different results is because your chicken is absorbing salt due tp a dfferent factor. It could be the chicken had a lot of ice crystal damage to start with. | @Aaronut provided an excellent answer addressing all of your points about brining, but as his comment on #5 indicates **it doesn't sound like brining is your problem.** If your method of cooking the chicken is boiling it **for a soup** then **brining isn't necessary.** The purpose of brining is to keep the meat from getting dried out during cooking, which will not happen if it is submerged in broth and simmered gently until done. A secondary purpose of brining is to bring out flavors, but again in a soup your broth should have salt, vegetables, and spices, so the brine is unnecessary.
Brining does not cook the meat, nor will it significantly change cooking speed (whatever the cooking method), so if "there are raw looking bits in the leg pieces" you do need to cook it longer, but your brine is not the problem. If I'm misinterpreting, please do edit your question to indicate (a) your cooking method, (b) *how* the results are disappointing (flavor, saltiness, done-ness, texture, moisture level?). |
7,717,773 | I've recently starting using [Pow](http://pow.cx/) for local Rails application development. I typically use parallels 7 for cross-browser testing. I'm running into an issue where my POW development url - e.g. somesubdomain.domain.dev - is not accessible from the parallels virtual machines.
Has anyone had any luck setting up a pow + parallels combination? Suggestions? | 2011/10/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7717773",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/629318/"
] | Adding my experience to this question even though it is was asked a few months ago. I had a similar problem recently, and although I was never successful accessing my pow url from the windows machine I followed the instructions here and was able to connect to the local app from parallels:
<http://fortysevenmedia.com/blog/archives/testing_a_rails_application_in_ie_in_parallels_and_in_leopard/>
The post was written for Snow Leopard but I had success using Lion too. | I had the same issue.
I manage to install the gem powder, who allow me to stop and start pow.
<https://github.com/Rodreegez/powder>
For cross-browser testing, I'm launching the rails server on localhost:3000.
I would like to have a better solution too :-)
Anyone ? |
7,717,773 | I've recently starting using [Pow](http://pow.cx/) for local Rails application development. I typically use parallels 7 for cross-browser testing. I'm running into an issue where my POW development url - e.g. somesubdomain.domain.dev - is not accessible from the parallels virtual machines.
Has anyone had any luck setting up a pow + parallels combination? Suggestions? | 2011/10/10 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/7717773",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/629318/"
] | As someone answered [here](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6379453/remotely-viewing-web-pages-served-by-pow-cx), <http://xip.io/> makes this super easy to do. | I had the same issue.
I manage to install the gem powder, who allow me to stop and start pow.
<https://github.com/Rodreegez/powder>
For cross-browser testing, I'm launching the rails server on localhost:3000.
I would like to have a better solution too :-)
Anyone ? |
39,509 | One of the common problems that a language learner often faces is searching for a word knowing only the pronunciation. Usually it is possible to guess the correct spelling, but sometimes not.
How should one go about searching for a word, knowing only the pronunciation? | 2014/11/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/39509",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5040/"
] | You can try to do a soundex match, like at [this site](http://www.litscape.com/word_tools/soundex_match.php). Soundex indexes words by pronunciation so you can often use it to find similar-sounding words. | This can indeed be a problem. When I read this question I was immediately reminded of the time several decades ago when I was looking for the word "aisle" in a dictionary. I didn't know how to spell it, and I assumed it started with an "i", so I searched in vain without finding it.
The only way I know to find a spelling from a pronunciation is to know all the conventional English pronunciation rules, so that you can guess at alternate spellings. From the pronunciation "in-dite-ment" you could pretty readily guess that it must start with an "i" or an "e", those are the only two letters commonly pronounced with the short "i" sound. Even if you thought it was more of a schwa, "i" and "e" are the most likely possibilities for the beginning of a word. The next letter is almost surely "n" -- no other letter in English makes an "n" sound. Similarly next is "d". The long "i" sound could be made with "i", "ae", "ay", or "ey". Etc. Yeah, the silent "c" is going to trip you up. Etc.
It would be very nice if there were dictionaries or web sites that had some sort of cross index by pronunciation. Maybe there are: I don't know of any. |
39,509 | One of the common problems that a language learner often faces is searching for a word knowing only the pronunciation. Usually it is possible to guess the correct spelling, but sometimes not.
How should one go about searching for a word, knowing only the pronunciation? | 2014/11/14 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/39509",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5040/"
] | I'm working on such a pronunciation dictionary. It can search by pronunciation or spelling. It uses [CMUdict](http://www.speech.cs.cmu.edu/cgi-bin/cmudict) (American English) as its data source. It's a freeware Windows app.
I've just reached the stage to release it for the first time. I hope it's OK to provide a link to it here: [PronunDict](http://sourceforge.net/projects/pronundict/) (EDIT: link updated).
EDIT: Here's an example screenshot of searching for words that are pronounced /hir/:
 | This can indeed be a problem. When I read this question I was immediately reminded of the time several decades ago when I was looking for the word "aisle" in a dictionary. I didn't know how to spell it, and I assumed it started with an "i", so I searched in vain without finding it.
The only way I know to find a spelling from a pronunciation is to know all the conventional English pronunciation rules, so that you can guess at alternate spellings. From the pronunciation "in-dite-ment" you could pretty readily guess that it must start with an "i" or an "e", those are the only two letters commonly pronounced with the short "i" sound. Even if you thought it was more of a schwa, "i" and "e" are the most likely possibilities for the beginning of a word. The next letter is almost surely "n" -- no other letter in English makes an "n" sound. Similarly next is "d". The long "i" sound could be made with "i", "ae", "ay", or "ey". Etc. Yeah, the silent "c" is going to trip you up. Etc.
It would be very nice if there were dictionaries or web sites that had some sort of cross index by pronunciation. Maybe there are: I don't know of any. |
1,901,862 | Is there any opensource library/WPF Control that can act as bitmap editor (e.g. just like old good MS Paint)? Or some example for starting point?
To be clear — I'm looking for a library (or something), that can be used inside my application.
Any other ideas are wellcome. | 2009/12/14 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1901862",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/231412/"
] | You could use an InkCanvas. It already comes with some built-in features.
Another possibility would be creating your own control based on a WriteableBitmap. | Are you looking for a control to embed in your app or a good, free image editor to create artwork? If it's the later, try [Paint.NET](http://www.getpaint.net). |
49,828 | I wish to setup an automated backup system for three Windows XP machines in the same building to a Linux server out on the WAN. I visit each machine every few months and make a disk image for a bare metal recovery. I need a way to automatically backup user documents (including Outlook's mailbox file). This is for a small daycare/preschool and therefore needs to be a low budget project.
There will be no qualified sysadmin on site daily to deal with problems. The backup needs to run without user intervention and without fail.
The file recovery needs to either be accomplished remotely (i.e., they call me; I push the recovered file back to their system), or simple enough for a non-techie to operate.
As I see it the candidate systems are [Amanda](http://www.amanda.org/), [Bacula](http://www.bacula.org/en/) and [BackupPC](http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/index.html). Reading the docs I see that BackupPC is probably out of the running because it does not do Volume Snapshot Services (VSS). What is your practical experience with these systems? Is there some other system that I should be considering? | 2009/08/04 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/49828",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2482/"
] | Bacula has a Windows client (that can be either desktop or server clients) that handles backups quite well. It utilizes VSS to create hot images of whatever you're looking to backup (works fine with Outlook AFAIK). You can set the desktop clients to use different ports than the default (9101 I think?) and port forward requests from their WAN router to each individual computer. Something with a VPN would be preferable, but not always possible.
Amanda and BackupPC use samba shares to backup - not exactly ideal, especially over WAN.
Additionally, Bacula has a bartpe plugin to do bare-metal recoveries, something that I haven't found for Amanda or BackupPC. The problem is that bare-metal recoveries are going to be tough (read: not impossible) to do remotely. I'm thinking your best bet with that is to have the clients boot to PXE where you recover the files to the client PC, or something similar. Either way, it'll be tough to set up.
Currently I use Bacula to backup 2 servers, 8 Windows clients, and 3 Linux clients, and it works very well. It has a number of front ends, with a python based graphical tool coming soon.
Recoveries are done to a server's local directory, then you can copy/push files to the clients that need them.
For what you're looking for, I think this fits the bill. | Amanda has a Windows Client from zmanda which support VSS:
<http://wiki.zmanda.com/index.php/Zmanda_Windows_Client> |
49,828 | I wish to setup an automated backup system for three Windows XP machines in the same building to a Linux server out on the WAN. I visit each machine every few months and make a disk image for a bare metal recovery. I need a way to automatically backup user documents (including Outlook's mailbox file). This is for a small daycare/preschool and therefore needs to be a low budget project.
There will be no qualified sysadmin on site daily to deal with problems. The backup needs to run without user intervention and without fail.
The file recovery needs to either be accomplished remotely (i.e., they call me; I push the recovered file back to their system), or simple enough for a non-techie to operate.
As I see it the candidate systems are [Amanda](http://www.amanda.org/), [Bacula](http://www.bacula.org/en/) and [BackupPC](http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/index.html). Reading the docs I see that BackupPC is probably out of the running because it does not do Volume Snapshot Services (VSS). What is your practical experience with these systems? Is there some other system that I should be considering? | 2009/08/04 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/49828",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/2482/"
] | Bacula has a Windows client (that can be either desktop or server clients) that handles backups quite well. It utilizes VSS to create hot images of whatever you're looking to backup (works fine with Outlook AFAIK). You can set the desktop clients to use different ports than the default (9101 I think?) and port forward requests from their WAN router to each individual computer. Something with a VPN would be preferable, but not always possible.
Amanda and BackupPC use samba shares to backup - not exactly ideal, especially over WAN.
Additionally, Bacula has a bartpe plugin to do bare-metal recoveries, something that I haven't found for Amanda or BackupPC. The problem is that bare-metal recoveries are going to be tough (read: not impossible) to do remotely. I'm thinking your best bet with that is to have the clients boot to PXE where you recover the files to the client PC, or something similar. Either way, it'll be tough to set up.
Currently I use Bacula to backup 2 servers, 8 Windows clients, and 3 Linux clients, and it works very well. It has a number of front ends, with a python based graphical tool coming soon.
Recoveries are done to a server's local directory, then you can copy/push files to the clients that need them.
For what you're looking for, I think this fits the bill. | backuppc can also use VSS, via the rsyncd+vss method, check the url:
<http://www.goodjobsucking.com/?p=62>
It uses the windows RPC to remotely start scripts that setup the VSS and startup a rsync daemon.
i already build the needed "client" scripts and tools in here, so its easy to install:
<http://caravela.motaleite.net/~higuita/backuppc/>
i use this on +500 workstations and +50 servers with windows xp, windows 2003, vista, 7 and 2008 32bit and 64bits.
other package with the same scripts (version 1.1 doesn't seem to support 64bit, but do have wake-on-lan support):
<http://www.michaelstowe.com/backuppc/>
As it uses a windows service and no encryption, i recommend this for LAN usage, if you need security (as for WAN usage) you will want to setup a vpn to protect the traffic and the clients. check the openvpn, its easy to setup and secure.
If you need WAN and cant use a vpn, you can also check the cygwin ssh+rsync method:
<http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/backuppc/index.php?title=CygwinSSHWindows>
[[http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/backuppc/index.php?title=User\_Scripts\_-*Client*-\_Windows\_VSS](http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/backuppc/index.php?title=User_Scripts_-_Client_-_Windows_VSS)](http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/backuppc/index.php?title=User_Scripts_-_Client_-_Windows_VSS) |
80,618 | This semester I've been teaching a few hours for another professor (I'm a Postdoc). The idea is that I get some teaching experience while he gets a few precious extra hours for his research.
His slides didn't come with any notes, and he hasn't been very responsive in answering my questions about exactly what he said when he delivered the content. I revised the material and edited the slides in preparation. But, after the first hour of class, I've covered about half the material, which was supposed to last three hours. So, I guess either I've missed something implicit (not on the slides) or I've just not paced the material well.
Short of practising in full, how does one take, adapt and own somebody else's lecture materials? | 2016/11/28 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80618",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19988/"
] | What do you mean by "and the cites counted"? Do you mean something like Google Scholar will index it?
If so, then the common route in CS is to publish *something* that introduces the program (although the code often lives on github). Then people will often cite that paper and or the repo whenever they use your program.
That isn't necessarily a ton of work either. Many conferences have workshops or industry tracks (in case you are an engineer and not a researcher). Also, see dgraziotin's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/14041/746) on publishing a paper in an open access journal so that others could cite his work. | You're already publishing something, and this would be the ideal object to cite for people that will use your software in the future.
I would suggest putting the software on a repository, or even on your own website. Then just ask that people cite your paper if they use your software for a publication.
Some examples from my field:
* <http://www.gromacs.org/Gromacs_papers>
* <http://autodock.scripps.edu/resources/references>
* <https://swissmodel.expasy.org/docs/references>
Many of the articles listed there got 100s or 1000s of citations. |
80,618 | This semester I've been teaching a few hours for another professor (I'm a Postdoc). The idea is that I get some teaching experience while he gets a few precious extra hours for his research.
His slides didn't come with any notes, and he hasn't been very responsive in answering my questions about exactly what he said when he delivered the content. I revised the material and edited the slides in preparation. But, after the first hour of class, I've covered about half the material, which was supposed to last three hours. So, I guess either I've missed something implicit (not on the slides) or I've just not paced the material well.
Short of practising in full, how does one take, adapt and own somebody else's lecture materials? | 2016/11/28 | [
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/80618",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com",
"https://academia.stackexchange.com/users/19988/"
] | What do you mean by "and the cites counted"? Do you mean something like Google Scholar will index it?
If so, then the common route in CS is to publish *something* that introduces the program (although the code often lives on github). Then people will often cite that paper and or the repo whenever they use your program.
That isn't necessarily a ton of work either. Many conferences have workshops or industry tracks (in case you are an engineer and not a researcher). Also, see dgraziotin's [answer](https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/14041/746) on publishing a paper in an open access journal so that others could cite his work. | One option is to put it onto Github, which allows you to mint a DOI so that it can be easily cited by others, which in turn allows you to quantify its impact.
If you are a member of an academic institution you should check with your library services. Increasingly they regard themselves as custodians of data, and so may have a standard process for archiving and sharing code and datasets. Often this takes the form of a landing page with a stable URL and including a description of the code, with links to the source (perhaps tagged versions mapping to what you used in your publications) and compiled executables, if appropriate. |
123,579 | What can I do if the employee I'm replacing refuses (in a discreet way) to turn over knowledge and instead gives it to my would be subordinate?
I have been recently promoted earlier this year to become a junior developer. Fast forward today, my senior is now resigning and our manager wants to promote me. A new hire tech support (who is eager to learn) will take my junior position.
For some weird reason, my senior started performing turn overs to my would be junior (the tech support). Whenever I ask him about turning over to me, he says that there is nothing else to teach despite the fact the I am mostly unaware of his duties because our manager gave us different roles. We never actually collaborated for years because he was focused on ERP maintenance, deployment and configuration while I was focused on intranet sites development and automation. Our projects never really crossed paths.
Our manager does not talk about it and he seems super complacent that everything will go well. He never talks about it and just proceed with small talks whenever he goes to our workstations.
Is this normal? I feel like quitting before the promotion comes because I do not want to become a senior officer that knows nothing about his tasks. | 2018/11/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/123579",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/17258/"
] | It happens, often when the departing employee has some chip on their shoulder about the company they somehow think they are really "sticking it to the fat cats" by being difficult during handover. It's petty and pathetic but depressingly common.
Confronting the departing senior could be counter-productive, to be honest what I would do is take your soon to be junior aside and ask them to brief you on the information the senior has passed/will pass to them. It's not ideal having a second layer to the process but better than making an issue out of it and having said senior clam up completely.
I'd also stress that it's important to keep your manager informed as well, this covers you incase there is information missing or that you need to take a bit longer to acquire from the junior after the leaving senior has "finished" their handover.
>
> Is... is this normal? I feel like quitting before the promotion comes because I do not want to become a senior officer that knows nothing about his tasks.
>
>
>
What the previous senior is doing isn't "normal" - however it's actually very common to come into a role with little or no handover. So it's not a reason to quit IMO - if anything it's practice for something you'll encounter several more times in your career. | Openly and blatantly say to John,
>
> "John, you must tell me what needs to be done with ***>specific<*** system."
>
>
>
(You MUST insert a specific system there. Do not talk in abstractions or generalities.)
Openly and blatantly say to Boss,
>
> "Boss, you must tell me what needs to be done with ***>specific<*** system."
>
>
>
(Again, you MUST insert a specific system there. Do not talk in abstractions or generalities.)
That's what to do.
---
Be aware that in software, you typically have to *figure out everything yourself*. This comes as a shock to many new programmers.
---
>
> "I have tried to ask my senior what needs to be done. But he just tells me that there is nothing else to do. And everything is ready. My boss is on the same wavelength as him, and does not respond properly. I'm actually discouraged because my senior is turning over to my junior and not to me (despite me asking what to do)."
>
>
>
The answer then is clear. Simply get on with it.
In software you have to adopt the attitude that there's nobody there to help you. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | Unfortunately, oil consumption in these engines can be quite large. GM has put out service bulletins which says that engine use up to 1 quart per 2000 miles is perfectly normal. I found some information on [the bulletin](http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/118997-gm-oil-consumption-tsb-2007-a.html):
(**NOTE:** - I was unable to find the actual bulletin, but the following is an excerpt from it, which was copied into the forum link I provided above. Scroll down to entry #3 to find the bulletin in it's entirety.)
>
> Aggressive Driving High Speed or High RPM Driving
> Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.
>
>
> A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). **Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi).** This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner's Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
>
>
>
While whether you or I feel this amount of consumption is wrong, GM doesn't seem to think so. It may or may not be a cop-out by GM in not having to fix the engines, but it is what it is. With the bulletin GM is saying to the consumer, *live with it*.
My suggestion to you is to ensure you are keeping up with the oil changes and ensure every time you stop for gas (if not sooner) you are checking the oil to see how much you'll need to add. Buy the oil by the case and call it a day. My 2006 Chevrolet Silverado suffers from the same fate, though not as extensive as what you are seeing. I use about 3 quarts per oil change. Since I use the oil life monitor to change the oil, I really don't know how many miles that is. | I had the same problem and I replaced the DRI er side valve cover the OEM cover has a round hole about e the lifter which squirts oil into your pcv and suck into your intake. The new modified valve cover mover the hole and uses lips around the square hole to divert the oil away from your PVC intake. The pcv intake on my Silverado is a fixed orifice on the intake valve. Also I used an and plug in to disable the AFM which I hated. Truck has 165k miles and burns less than a half quart in 3000 miles. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | Unfortunately, oil consumption in these engines can be quite large. GM has put out service bulletins which says that engine use up to 1 quart per 2000 miles is perfectly normal. I found some information on [the bulletin](http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/118997-gm-oil-consumption-tsb-2007-a.html):
(**NOTE:** - I was unable to find the actual bulletin, but the following is an excerpt from it, which was copied into the forum link I provided above. Scroll down to entry #3 to find the bulletin in it's entirety.)
>
> Aggressive Driving High Speed or High RPM Driving
> Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.
>
>
> A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). **Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi).** This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner's Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
>
>
>
While whether you or I feel this amount of consumption is wrong, GM doesn't seem to think so. It may or may not be a cop-out by GM in not having to fix the engines, but it is what it is. With the bulletin GM is saying to the consumer, *live with it*.
My suggestion to you is to ensure you are keeping up with the oil changes and ensure every time you stop for gas (if not sooner) you are checking the oil to see how much you'll need to add. Buy the oil by the case and call it a day. My 2006 Chevrolet Silverado suffers from the same fate, though not as extensive as what you are seeing. I use about 3 quarts per oil change. Since I use the oil life monitor to change the oil, I really don't know how many miles that is. | I disagree that it is normal to use up to 1qzt of oil for every 500 miles or even 1000 miles. My 15 years and 17 years old Japanese (Accord & Maxima) cars, both v6 did not indicate any drop of oil on the dip stick on every 3000 miles oil change interval. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | Unfortunately, oil consumption in these engines can be quite large. GM has put out service bulletins which says that engine use up to 1 quart per 2000 miles is perfectly normal. I found some information on [the bulletin](http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/118997-gm-oil-consumption-tsb-2007-a.html):
(**NOTE:** - I was unable to find the actual bulletin, but the following is an excerpt from it, which was copied into the forum link I provided above. Scroll down to entry #3 to find the bulletin in it's entirety.)
>
> Aggressive Driving High Speed or High RPM Driving
> Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.
>
>
> A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). **Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi).** This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner's Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
>
>
>
While whether you or I feel this amount of consumption is wrong, GM doesn't seem to think so. It may or may not be a cop-out by GM in not having to fix the engines, but it is what it is. With the bulletin GM is saying to the consumer, *live with it*.
My suggestion to you is to ensure you are keeping up with the oil changes and ensure every time you stop for gas (if not sooner) you are checking the oil to see how much you'll need to add. Buy the oil by the case and call it a day. My 2006 Chevrolet Silverado suffers from the same fate, though not as extensive as what you are seeing. I use about 3 quarts per oil change. Since I use the oil life monitor to change the oil, I really don't know how many miles that is. | I have a 2006 SRX with 255,000 kms. It uses a litre of oil for every 500kms and has since I got it with 80,000. There are no leaks. this vehicle just burns oil although not visable from smoke. I have always been concerned about the high RPM's this engine operates at. At 110kms per hour the rpm is at 2200 to 2300 which seems high. My dodge Durango at the same speeds runs at 1800 rpm. Mo vehicle should burn this much oil. This is a poor engine design that was made either with inferior engine parts or just designed poorly. Best advice- don't buy one. I keep it because it is paid for and oil is cheaper than replacing it with something newer. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | Unfortunately, oil consumption in these engines can be quite large. GM has put out service bulletins which says that engine use up to 1 quart per 2000 miles is perfectly normal. I found some information on [the bulletin](http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/northstar-engines-system-technical-discussion/118997-gm-oil-consumption-tsb-2007-a.html):
(**NOTE:** - I was unable to find the actual bulletin, but the following is an excerpt from it, which was copied into the forum link I provided above. Scroll down to entry #3 to find the bulletin in it's entirety.)
>
> Aggressive Driving High Speed or High RPM Driving
> Aggressive driving and/or continuous driving at high speeds/high RPMs will increase oil consumption. Because this may not always be an everyday occurrence, it is hard to determine exactly how much the oil economy will be affected.
>
>
> A higher rate of oil consumption is normal for vehicles equipped with manual transmissions that are driven aggressively. By "aggressive," we mean operation at high RPM (3,000 RPM to redline), with frequent use of engine braking (using the engine to slow the vehicle). **Vehicles that are driven aggressively may consume engine oil at a rate of up to 0.946 L (1 quart) every 805 km (500 mi).** This is normal for a vehicle that is driven aggressively. No repair is necessary. This characteristic does, however, require the owner to check the engine oil level at sufficiently frequent intervals, especially when driving aggressively, to assure the oil level remains within the recommended operating range. As the Owner's Manual recommends, you should check the oil level every time you get fuel.
>
>
>
While whether you or I feel this amount of consumption is wrong, GM doesn't seem to think so. It may or may not be a cop-out by GM in not having to fix the engines, but it is what it is. With the bulletin GM is saying to the consumer, *live with it*.
My suggestion to you is to ensure you are keeping up with the oil changes and ensure every time you stop for gas (if not sooner) you are checking the oil to see how much you'll need to add. Buy the oil by the case and call it a day. My 2006 Chevrolet Silverado suffers from the same fate, though not as extensive as what you are seeing. I use about 3 quarts per oil change. Since I use the oil life monitor to change the oil, I really don't know how many miles that is. | Well, there then. The answer to the question is.... Buy a doorman drivers side valve cover for your CTS for 75.00 bucks, they moved the positive crankcase vent hole to the other end of the valve cover and baffled it so oil cant be sucked up the hose.I payed 1,150 for my 2006 CTS 2.8 a few little problems, in which one was, had a miss at idle, turned out it was they pulled the pcv line from air box and let it drained on the ground,but they forgot to plug the intake box, I put it back together for now,till I will probably drill a hole at the other end of my valve cover and add a pcv valve and plug the other end! Problem Solved! |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | I had the same problem and I replaced the DRI er side valve cover the OEM cover has a round hole about e the lifter which squirts oil into your pcv and suck into your intake. The new modified valve cover mover the hole and uses lips around the square hole to divert the oil away from your PVC intake. The pcv intake on my Silverado is a fixed orifice on the intake valve. Also I used an and plug in to disable the AFM which I hated. Truck has 165k miles and burns less than a half quart in 3000 miles. | I disagree that it is normal to use up to 1qzt of oil for every 500 miles or even 1000 miles. My 15 years and 17 years old Japanese (Accord & Maxima) cars, both v6 did not indicate any drop of oil on the dip stick on every 3000 miles oil change interval. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | I had the same problem and I replaced the DRI er side valve cover the OEM cover has a round hole about e the lifter which squirts oil into your pcv and suck into your intake. The new modified valve cover mover the hole and uses lips around the square hole to divert the oil away from your PVC intake. The pcv intake on my Silverado is a fixed orifice on the intake valve. Also I used an and plug in to disable the AFM which I hated. Truck has 165k miles and burns less than a half quart in 3000 miles. | I have a 2006 SRX with 255,000 kms. It uses a litre of oil for every 500kms and has since I got it with 80,000. There are no leaks. this vehicle just burns oil although not visable from smoke. I have always been concerned about the high RPM's this engine operates at. At 110kms per hour the rpm is at 2200 to 2300 which seems high. My dodge Durango at the same speeds runs at 1800 rpm. Mo vehicle should burn this much oil. This is a poor engine design that was made either with inferior engine parts or just designed poorly. Best advice- don't buy one. I keep it because it is paid for and oil is cheaper than replacing it with something newer. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | I had the same problem and I replaced the DRI er side valve cover the OEM cover has a round hole about e the lifter which squirts oil into your pcv and suck into your intake. The new modified valve cover mover the hole and uses lips around the square hole to divert the oil away from your PVC intake. The pcv intake on my Silverado is a fixed orifice on the intake valve. Also I used an and plug in to disable the AFM which I hated. Truck has 165k miles and burns less than a half quart in 3000 miles. | Well, there then. The answer to the question is.... Buy a doorman drivers side valve cover for your CTS for 75.00 bucks, they moved the positive crankcase vent hole to the other end of the valve cover and baffled it so oil cant be sucked up the hose.I payed 1,150 for my 2006 CTS 2.8 a few little problems, in which one was, had a miss at idle, turned out it was they pulled the pcv line from air box and let it drained on the ground,but they forgot to plug the intake box, I put it back together for now,till I will probably drill a hole at the other end of my valve cover and add a pcv valve and plug the other end! Problem Solved! |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | I have a 2006 SRX with 255,000 kms. It uses a litre of oil for every 500kms and has since I got it with 80,000. There are no leaks. this vehicle just burns oil although not visable from smoke. I have always been concerned about the high RPM's this engine operates at. At 110kms per hour the rpm is at 2200 to 2300 which seems high. My dodge Durango at the same speeds runs at 1800 rpm. Mo vehicle should burn this much oil. This is a poor engine design that was made either with inferior engine parts or just designed poorly. Best advice- don't buy one. I keep it because it is paid for and oil is cheaper than replacing it with something newer. | I disagree that it is normal to use up to 1qzt of oil for every 500 miles or even 1000 miles. My 15 years and 17 years old Japanese (Accord & Maxima) cars, both v6 did not indicate any drop of oil on the dip stick on every 3000 miles oil change interval. |
18,125 | 3 months ago I bought [Cadillac CTS 2007 3.6](http://www.helpfindmea.co.uk/cars/specs/cadillac-cts-specifications-825/cts-saloon-05-07-36-v6-sport-luxury-4dr-auto-specifications-31615.aspx) with 31k miles, next day I went to local garage and changed the oil, filters, etc.
I have driven 7k miles since and when driving last week car started feeling 'not right' I went to local halfords service to do diagnostics. Then discovered cylinders misfiring and only around 1 litre of oil in the engine.
I do drive it excessively (that should increase usage) still oil consumption sounds to much for what I am used to.
I didn't see any blue fumes coming out of exhaust, so engine would seem to not be leaking oil into combustion chamber.
**Is such consumption considered to be normal? What oil consumption should I expect?**. | 2015/07/02 | [
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/18125",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com",
"https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/users/11101/"
] | Well, there then. The answer to the question is.... Buy a doorman drivers side valve cover for your CTS for 75.00 bucks, they moved the positive crankcase vent hole to the other end of the valve cover and baffled it so oil cant be sucked up the hose.I payed 1,150 for my 2006 CTS 2.8 a few little problems, in which one was, had a miss at idle, turned out it was they pulled the pcv line from air box and let it drained on the ground,but they forgot to plug the intake box, I put it back together for now,till I will probably drill a hole at the other end of my valve cover and add a pcv valve and plug the other end! Problem Solved! | I disagree that it is normal to use up to 1qzt of oil for every 500 miles or even 1000 miles. My 15 years and 17 years old Japanese (Accord & Maxima) cars, both v6 did not indicate any drop of oil on the dip stick on every 3000 miles oil change interval. |
47,140,086 | If I'm just trying to create spacing between two elements, should I rather use 'padding' or 'margin'?
Is either way fine should I prefer one way? | 2017/11/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/47140086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8545535/"
] | That's depend what the effect you want. The result isn't the same.
**margin it's for the outside your HTML element**
**padding it's for the inside your HTML element**
To have a better view of the effect, add a visible background-color to your element.
But you can refer to this picture:
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlwVi.png)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To comeback to your question, for responsive design it's not important. It's all about media queries and screen breakpoints
You read this documentation: <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Using_media_queries> | Padding = distance between content and border
Margin = distance between border and the edge of parent element's border (if the parent element has no padding)
Check the CSS box-sizing property: [Box-sizing CSS](https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_pr_box-sizing.asp)
Border-box contains the padding, but not the margin.
I say use margin for placing the element, and use padding if you want to put the border farther from the border.
You should also check this link out as it will help you understand the layout of your html page better:
[Box-Model](https://www.w3schools.com/css/css_boxmodel.asp) |
47,140,086 | If I'm just trying to create spacing between two elements, should I rather use 'padding' or 'margin'?
Is either way fine should I prefer one way? | 2017/11/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/47140086",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/8545535/"
] | That's depend what the effect you want. The result isn't the same.
**margin it's for the outside your HTML element**
**padding it's for the inside your HTML element**
To have a better view of the effect, add a visible background-color to your element.
But you can refer to this picture:
[enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VlwVi.png)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
To comeback to your question, for responsive design it's not important. It's all about media queries and screen breakpoints
You read this documentation: <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Media_Queries/Using_media_queries> | In case you are just asking with respect to responsiveness then I would say, "IT DOESN'T MAKES A DIFFERENCE".
Responsiveness is independent of the style type but it does depends on '**PIXEL**' and '**PERCENTAGE**', if you have your margin or padding in percentage and you have a media query to redefine it in mobile and Tab screens then congratulations your screen is responsive.
Major difference between padding and margin is that, the margins when kept adjacent collapse where as padding don't. For ex. keep 2 div's with margin of 10 px each, you'll see that the total space both have between them is just 10px, this is because the margins when collided collapse where as when you'll do the same with the padding thing, there will be a 20px space between the div's. |
35,058 | Windows 7: I have the Browse folders option set to "Open each folder in the same window" in the Folder Options dialog. Double-clicking folders opens a new window. Please, make it stop. | 2009/09/03 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/35058",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/6922/"
] | I'm having the same problem on the machine I'm at, but it doesn't happen on other machines I've used in the past. You inspired me to try something just now
In folder options, choose file types. find the "(NONE) Folder" item and click on Advanced
set the default action to open (was yours set to explore like mine?). That didn't work, but I did notice it's opening up in new window when the folders pane is visible, and otherwise in its own window - does that match your behaviour? | if it is not due to virus then go to folder option, general, browse folders, click on radio button (open each button in same window)... It's for windows 7 |
6,631,178 | Okay, I think the title can be quite confusing... :)
My application is using CS-Script as a script interface.
In the scripts my application will be running, I want to have some sort of "Debug print" - meaning somewhere in the script the scripter can do "Debug.Print("BLAAAAH!!!");") and that would show up somewhere in my very funky output dialog.
Of course I can create my own debug-ooutput-stuff, but since I'm using C# as a scripting language and people using C# would be used to use System.Diagnostics and use Debug.Print("..."),
it would be great if I could reroute System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print("") and System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("...") to trace their output to my cool output-window.
So.
Does anybody know if it's possible to reroute C#'s System.Diagnostic.Debug print/writeline output to something I have control over ? | 2011/07/08 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/6631178",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/427907/"
] | It really depends on what type of access you have to your server.
If you have remote desktop access then run remote desktop (mstsc in run) and connect to your server.
[This article](http://www.beansoftware.com/ASP.NET-Tutorials/Set-Up-IIS-ASP.NET.aspx) shows how to install your web application in IIS on server.
[This blog post from Scott Guthrie](http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/12/22/recipe-deploying-a-sql-database-to-a-remote-hosting-environment-part-1.aspx) shows you how to deploy your sql database to your server.
In case you only have access to your server via a control panel (plesk) you should still be able to do the same via a different interface. (you need to go through the instructions given for the specific control panel you are using).
Hope this helps. | For ASP.Net website, just upload all files using FTP, in wwwroot folder of your hosting.
For SQL Server database there are following option.
1. Attach your MDF file on hosting database server (if you have remote desktop).
2. Generate a script of whole database with full data, schema, and indexes etc. and run the script in query editor of your hosting panel.
3. First of all create a database from your hosting panel and a user for your database then Use SQL Serer 2008 (R2 most preferable) and connect with your hosting SQL Server using hosting server name in Server name, your db user id in User Name, and same for password. And then connect, you will find a long list of databases including your own database. Now right click on your database and import data from your local database server to remote database server. |
159,885 | Does anyone know why Chinese (instead of, for example Japanese) was chosen as the written language in *The Last Airbender*?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1VeAl.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RqpyL.png) | 2017/05/20 | [
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/159885",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com",
"https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/57346/"
] | The creators talk about the show's behind-the-scenes at length in *Avatar: The Last Airbender - The Art of the Animated Series* (2010). They did specifically set on Chinese as the written language; and that ties in with them drawing so heavily from other Chinese mythology, arts and folklore that using another calligraphy would just have looked out of place. It provides information on the "but, Chinese elements usually have metal and wood as well" issue raised in the comments.
[Page 26](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fdVPL.jpg):
>
> DEVELOPING THE ART OF BENDING
>
>
> BRYAN: We had a desire to do something physical and tangible with the concept of magic, something more dynamic than the usual “magic wand” fare. **As we settled into the concept of an Asian-influenced fantasy world, the idea of using traditional Chinese martial arts to manipulate the elements was the next logical step.** Films like *Shaolin Soccer* helped to influence this idea, building on a tradition in Hong Kong cinema of blending supernatural powers with kung fu. Our bending concept allowed for high-energy action scenes without an emphasis on violence, since the practitioners are generally fighting element to element rather than fist on face.
>
>
> People often assume the “four-element theory” (comprised of air, water, earth, and fire) we brought to bending is exclusive to ancient Greece, and that in ancient China only a “five-element theory” was used (comprised of wood, fire, earth, metal, and water). Mike and I never claim to be experts in any of these subjects, but in our research we found the four-element theory was prevalent in ancient cultures all over the world, including ancient Buddhist teachings. While the five-element theory is interesting in its own right, we were attracted to the universality of the four simple elements. It makes for an instantly understandable concept that has translated well to audiences in a number of disparate cultures, just like it did thousands of years ago.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4LCWf.png)
Pages 126 to 130 are a spotlight on the show's calligraphy.
>
> SPOTLIGHT: The Calligraphy of S. L. Lee
>
>
> BRYAN: **We decided early on that we would use Chinese for all writing and signage seen within the show. Much in the way Sifu Kisu became the martial-arts consultant, we wanted to find a Chinese calligraphy expert to handle all of the writing.** An Internet search led us to the work of Dr. Siu-Leung Lee (known to us as S. L. Lee). I e-mailed him and heard back within the hour, and we have been working together ever since.
>
>
> S. L. Lee handled all of the translation and calligraphy for *Avatar*, including providing the calligraphy for our logo. His vast knowledge and command of various styles of calligraphy throughout China’s history added a culturally grounding component to the show.
>
>
> When I would send Dr. Lee a request for a poster or a decree, he would quiz me about what unseen fictional character had done the calligraphy in the show. If it were a highly cultured royal attendant, he would use a refined, elegant style, but if it were a low-level clerk, he would use a more pedestrian handwriting style. We typically used classical Chinese for the writing, but thanks to Dr. Lee’s deep knowledge, we also included archaic Chinese, particularly for ancient texts about the spirits or elements. We were truly lucky to have such a great talent contributing his beautiful work and expertise to our show.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y73h3.jpg) | The different types of bending are based on different types of Chinese martial arts. Water bending is based on Tai Chi, Fire bending is based on Northern Shaolin, Earth bending is based on Hung Ga, and Air bending is based on Bagua Zhang (pronounced "bag waa"). So Chinese writing is used because the central thematic element of the show (bending) is based on Chinese martial arts. |
88,838 | I have two legal residences. One in the US (Baltimore) and one in The Philippines (Mandaluyong City). It's conceivable that I may start spending 1/3 of the year in Singapore as well.
I understand the recent fiddling with locations based on data returned from Yahoo, but I really want my profile to be accurate. It recently went from accurate to half accurate.
Would it be too much work to allow for multiple locations for the globe hopping minority, or should we just list the location that is our claim to citizenship? I thought about just updating my profile as my location changes, but I don't want to accidentally exclude myself from something that someone else is organizing based on a query.
Given the rest of the feature requests, I suppose this may seem trivial, but there's no harm in asking :) | 2011/04/26 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88838",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/50049/"
] | I think that it's really too rare of a case that many users will need to list multiple entries for their location to be fully accurate. That's only my own take on it, though. I sometimes spend a good deal of the year halfway across the globe as well, but I'm not listing a legal residence as my location in the first place, haha.
The recent fiddling was one-time only, and is not enforced. Encouraged, perhaps, but not enforced. As such, I suggest that in the interrim period while this feature is evaluated, you just put your two/three locations inside that one field, perhaps separated by a semicolon. If you want, you can enter your locations individually, see how the Yahoo format specifies for each of them, and use those to stay in the same formatting.
You can either place your primary residence as the first entry, or the current one. I imagine that for studies, it would be more "accurate" that it is your current residence, but that requires you to update your profile. Sure, Copy makes it easier to push across the Network, but it's still an extra step, so the ball's in your court. | Your stackoverflow profile doesn't matter too much in this case. You can put in multiple desired locations in your career's profile that will show employers where you are interested working. If you must make this information more available, add it to your description. |
88,838 | I have two legal residences. One in the US (Baltimore) and one in The Philippines (Mandaluyong City). It's conceivable that I may start spending 1/3 of the year in Singapore as well.
I understand the recent fiddling with locations based on data returned from Yahoo, but I really want my profile to be accurate. It recently went from accurate to half accurate.
Would it be too much work to allow for multiple locations for the globe hopping minority, or should we just list the location that is our claim to citizenship? I thought about just updating my profile as my location changes, but I don't want to accidentally exclude myself from something that someone else is organizing based on a query.
Given the rest of the feature requests, I suppose this may seem trivial, but there's no harm in asking :) | 2011/04/26 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88838",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/50049/"
] | I think that it's really too rare of a case that many users will need to list multiple entries for their location to be fully accurate. That's only my own take on it, though. I sometimes spend a good deal of the year halfway across the globe as well, but I'm not listing a legal residence as my location in the first place, haha.
The recent fiddling was one-time only, and is not enforced. Encouraged, perhaps, but not enforced. As such, I suggest that in the interrim period while this feature is evaluated, you just put your two/three locations inside that one field, perhaps separated by a semicolon. If you want, you can enter your locations individually, see how the Yahoo format specifies for each of them, and use those to stay in the same formatting.
You can either place your primary residence as the first entry, or the current one. I imagine that for studies, it would be more "accurate" that it is your current residence, but that requires you to update your profile. Sure, Copy makes it easier to push across the Network, but it's still an extra step, so the ball's in your court. | Now that the Data Explorer is updated on a pretty regular interval, you can just make sure you keep this field up to date if you tend to move about a bit and want to turn up in queries people run while organizing events and such.
And, well, this goes without saying - make sure you have some kind of contact means in your profile, or they'll find you to no avail :)
And really - OCD much do we? |
88,838 | I have two legal residences. One in the US (Baltimore) and one in The Philippines (Mandaluyong City). It's conceivable that I may start spending 1/3 of the year in Singapore as well.
I understand the recent fiddling with locations based on data returned from Yahoo, but I really want my profile to be accurate. It recently went from accurate to half accurate.
Would it be too much work to allow for multiple locations for the globe hopping minority, or should we just list the location that is our claim to citizenship? I thought about just updating my profile as my location changes, but I don't want to accidentally exclude myself from something that someone else is organizing based on a query.
Given the rest of the feature requests, I suppose this may seem trivial, but there's no harm in asking :) | 2011/04/26 | [
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/88838",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://meta.stackexchange.com/users/50049/"
] | Now that the Data Explorer is updated on a pretty regular interval, you can just make sure you keep this field up to date if you tend to move about a bit and want to turn up in queries people run while organizing events and such.
And, well, this goes without saying - make sure you have some kind of contact means in your profile, or they'll find you to no avail :)
And really - OCD much do we? | Your stackoverflow profile doesn't matter too much in this case. You can put in multiple desired locations in your career's profile that will show employers where you are interested working. If you must make this information more available, add it to your description. |
30,183 | In [IGN's interview with Notch about the changes in 1.8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcNgWEhlAxg "Minecraft: Creator Notch Commentary - Beta 1.8 Preview - YouTube"), Notch seems to be able to change the time of day at a whim. Is this enabled by default (i.e., without mods), or is this a special Notch power? | 2011/09/11 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/30183",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/5029/"
] | It *is* a special "Notch power" not available to players — it was used by the Minecraft developers for debugging. It was accidentally released in the first pre-release of Beta 1.8, but was taken out for the second one and the "stable beta" release.
The only way of controlling time is the operator-only [`/time` command](http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/SMP_Server_commands "SMP Server Commands - Minecraft Wiki") on multiplayer servers, which is instantaneous (unlike the effect shown in the video). | You will be able to control the time of day in [creative mode](http://www.minecraftforum.net/news/199-pax-18-game-features/).
>
> 1.8 will add Creative Mode
>
>
> Since the Adventure mode will be replacing Survival, Mojang has also re-implemented Creative mode! In this mode, players will take no damage, be able to fly, **control day/night directly**, can spawn infinite items of any type, and can break blocks with one hit!
>
>
> |
33,295,653 | I want to create several instances of same model form a single form. And more importantly, the number of instances aren't known before form rendering.
I've seen several tutorials of this kind, but unfortunately those didn't suit my need. I've seen Ryan bate's nested form tutorial. But I'm not creating nested form. I've also seen some tutorials, which do create multiple objects, but the number of object's are all known in those cases. One of the tutorial is here - <http://archive.railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=717>
User will click a button and a new set of fields for a new object will be inserted just like the nested form demo from ryanb.
Here is a mockup of what I want. It's basically a very small form fit into a single line.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cNc2o.png) | 2015/10/23 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/33295653",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1039893/"
] | As i understand you need [cocoon gem](https://github.com/nathanvda/cocoon) it allows to add form fields | It sounds like you may need to reach beyond Rails views and utilize javascript to dynamically render more "partials" when the user decides to add more fields. Something like this: [Adding input elements dynamically to form](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14853779/adding-input-elements-dynamically-to-form)
If you want to keep your view rendering logic in rails, you could make an AJAX request to your application, have it return just a partial's worth of html back, and insert the response html into your dom. |
13,364,169 | I've seen a lot of people recommend zsh over bash for ruby development and i'm failing to understand what zsh offers over bash?
The answerable question for this post is:
What benefit, specific to ruby developers, does one see when using zsh instead of bash?
Thank you! | 2012/11/13 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/13364169",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/365858/"
] | Edit : this applies if you use [oh-my-zsh](https://github.com/robbyrussell/oh-my-zsh)
Personally, I'm mainly using it because it displays your current git branch in the command prompt. Therefore, if like me you often have to switch branches, you don't mix code by accident.
Also, one of the nice benefits for me is that I created a fork of `oh-my-zsh` with my custom theme enabled by default, and I can deploy it on whatever machine I need it onto (say, production servers) with just a few commands. This way, I load up all my zsh aliases, my custom theme etc ...
Finally there's a zsh plugin I'm using that is [zsh-syntax-highlighting](https://github.com/zsh-users/zsh-syntax-highlighting). This highlights commands as you type them, to make it dummy-proof. Green = good existing command, red = you made a typo ... but there's more to it, it's worth a try.
So yeah, git integration and the ability to install my own personal zsh setup on whatever machine within seconds is why I like it.
There's also a railscast talking about oh-my-zsh : <http://railscasts.com/episodes/308-oh-my-zsh> | A Ruby developer is unlikely to notice the difference unless they do some sort of shell scripting. The big wins for Zsh are:
* Better autocompletion (IMHO--bash has autocompletion but, somehow, zsh's is just more intuitive, more fluid and generally more mature).
* Additional data structures.
* Additional modules.
Autocompletion is the biggest day to day difference. The rest you will only notice if you write shell scripts. |
10,619,522 | Ok I'm stumped. I've configured an IIS 6 website with its own App Pool, which has its own AD domain credential. When I attempt to browse the site, I see a page that simply says "Access is denied.". There is no error code or information in Event Logs.
I am able to open Notepad with the app pool account credentials (and open the html file I'm trying to browse).
If I add the app pool's domain account to the local administrators group, the site loads. However, this is not acceptable for our environment.
I have successfully configured this site on two servers (that are supposed to be identical in a load-balanced pair). However, try as I might, I can't find any difference between these two servers' configurations. | 2012/05/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10619522",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1125584/"
] | Its a best tutorial for starting with Map
<http://mobiforge.com/developing/story/using-google-maps-android> | you can use same key but key verise with signing key so it would be different for device and emulator as if signing key is different..
and see
[Couldn't get connection factory client - fighting with Google Maps](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7982320/couldnt-get-connection-factory-client-fighting-with-google-maps) |
10,619,522 | Ok I'm stumped. I've configured an IIS 6 website with its own App Pool, which has its own AD domain credential. When I attempt to browse the site, I see a page that simply says "Access is denied.". There is no error code or information in Event Logs.
I am able to open Notepad with the app pool account credentials (and open the html file I'm trying to browse).
If I add the app pool's domain account to the local administrators group, the site loads. However, this is not acceptable for our environment.
I have successfully configured this site on two servers (that are supposed to be identical in a load-balanced pair). However, try as I might, I can't find any difference between these two servers' configurations. | 2012/05/16 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/10619522",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1125584/"
] | Its a best tutorial for starting with Map
<http://mobiforge.com/developing/story/using-google-maps-android> | Yes proble is with your API\_KEY.
You must have to generate key as per your package name.
Refer this link:
<https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/android/start#getting_the_google_maps_android_api_v2> |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | What you seem to not get from the paper is that the EPR-thought experiment actually made a prediction: It predicted that there are correlations within quantum systems that are stronger than in any possible classical system or any local hidden variable theory. The "spooky action at a distance" is just failing classical intuition. Don't read too much into it (I'll comment more below), let's first examine the stronger correlations:
This thought (that bipartite quantum states can exhibit stronger correlations than classically possible) is not really well presented in the EPR paper - and I believe that this is one reason, why experimentalists ignored it for decades. But other people, most prominently perhaps Bell, derived equations that hold for any classical system but do not hold for some entangled states - the easiest example being the [CHSH-inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality). This is a testible quantity: You can produce states and test, whether they violate this inequality, if they do, that's a hallmark for a genuinely quantum phenomenon.
But why would you try to show this phenomenon over hundreds of kilometres? A few metres should be enough, shouldn't it? To show the existence of this phenomenon, a few metres would certainly be more than enough. The enterprise of producing entangled pairs over larger and larger distances that has only been tried recently and its due to the already linked to **quantum teleportation** protocol: While it is not possible to transmit an unknown quantum state via measurements and classical communication (i.e. phone calls), it is possible to transmit it by using entangled states. This opens possibilities for cryptography and information transmission, but for it to work, you'll need entangled states over long distances.
But what about spooky action at a distance and how does this not contradict the theory of relativity, which doesn't allow for instantaneous information transfer? The EPR paper was very much concerned with this "spooky action at a distance", but it is just a term stemming from classical intuition. Entangled states cannot transmit information faster than light (see multiple threads on this topic here, there is a mathematical account e.g. here: [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot)). | A thought experiment is not really an experiment, but an idea. Science requires people to be able to test ideas with reproducible experiments. I can't reproduce a thought "experiment".
A reproducible physical experiment produces physical observations. See "[Empirical research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research)". |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | Even for things that seem very clear from the theory, you will want to check them. You asked
>
> I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
>
>
>
Well, of course they were expecting the entanglement. But finding that this is NOT there, would have been a huge thing - Quantum Mechanics needed to be amended!! As much sense as a theory might make, it must be subject to experimental verification in all aspects.
Similarly, most physicists were convinced for decades that the Higgs boson must be there and still we build ever larger experiments looking for it, since if we had NOT found the Higgs boson, we would have to re-think a large bit of what we know about particle physics. | A thought experiment is not really an experiment, but an idea. Science requires people to be able to test ideas with reproducible experiments. I can't reproduce a thought "experiment".
A reproducible physical experiment produces physical observations. See "[Empirical research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research)". |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | Even for things that seem very clear from the theory, you will want to check them. You asked
>
> I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
>
>
>
Well, of course they were expecting the entanglement. But finding that this is NOT there, would have been a huge thing - Quantum Mechanics needed to be amended!! As much sense as a theory might make, it must be subject to experimental verification in all aspects.
Similarly, most physicists were convinced for decades that the Higgs boson must be there and still we build ever larger experiments looking for it, since if we had NOT found the Higgs boson, we would have to re-think a large bit of what we know about particle physics. | EPR might seems a thought experiment, but it has been translated into an actual physic experiment, especially by physicist Alain Aspect.
You say quantum physic gives bizarre conclusion, that it is in an uncomfortable position, or that "philosophy of quantum mechanic" is at doubt. That's especially why it is important to really perform the "disturbing" experiments.
Many people are dissatisfied of quantum physic because it lacks an explanation compatible with common sense. This gives some idea like Broglie–Bohm theory, that are not very successful. They may hope that quantum theory will be replaced by another theory, a better one and one you can understand.
The thing is, outcomes of Alain Aspect experiment are facts. If another theory is to replace quantum mechanics, it must explain these facts. So this new theory will have some kind of weirdness.
In other words, these experiments shows that quantum theory is not bizarre : the world is bizarre. However, it is bizarre only if you want to stick with the common sense we inherited from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we can understand it quite well with modern physics.
On the philosophical consequence of quantum physics, I have read and recommend this book by Bernard d'Espagnat "Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts".
(I only regret this book doesn't really analyses Everett theory as well as other concepts.) |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | >
> And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
>
>
>
I think you will find that the technology is important in [communication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography). Quantum cryptography is a way of sending secure messages with, for example, entangled photons used to send a key. If photons are intercepted between the sender and the receiver then the photons are lost and the information never reaches the receiver. The sender and receiver can tell something is amiss. If sender and receiver communicate successfully they can be sure that noone was able to listen in. The unique information passed between the sender and receiver can enables them to, for example share a private key, and communicate securely. The details can be read [here](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/43793.pdf) and [here](http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2010/OPT253_reports/Justin_Essay.pdf).
So ... it is not possible to communicate by directly organizing a series of quantum states to be sent from one place to another, but it is possible to send information in the form of a random sequence of information from one place to another securely which can then used by sender and receiver to communicate securely.
I am not sure how much people had in mind quantum cryptography when they started these experiments, but it is an interesting spin-off that has come from this work.
(hope the wikipedia article linked above is helpful) | The experiments weren't tests of entanglement as such, but of [Bell's inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem).
J. S. Bell proved, from assumptions that seemed simple and obviously correct, a result that was inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Many people believed that QM had to be correct and therefore that there had to be something wrong with the assumptions (though it wasn't clear what). Others thought it was plausible that the assumptions were correct and QM might actually be wrong. The arguments on both sides were good enough that it was worth settling the question experimentally.
I disagree with the accepted answer which basically just says "we should test everything". We can't test everything because we don't have infinite resources. The most basic criterion that any proposed experiment should satisfy before we fund it is that there be at least two different outcomes it could plausibly have. OP questioned the sense of doing a test of EPR on that basis, and I think they were right to do so. Before Bell's theorem, there really was no sense in a "test of entanglement" because no one (not even EPR) had come up with a reason to believe that the result of any particular experiment would be anything other than what QM predicted. EPR argued that QM was incomplete, but didn't know how a more complete theory would differ in its predictions. |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | A thought experiment is not really an experiment, but an idea. Science requires people to be able to test ideas with reproducible experiments. I can't reproduce a thought "experiment".
A reproducible physical experiment produces physical observations. See "[Empirical research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research)". | EPR might seems a thought experiment, but it has been translated into an actual physic experiment, especially by physicist Alain Aspect.
You say quantum physic gives bizarre conclusion, that it is in an uncomfortable position, or that "philosophy of quantum mechanic" is at doubt. That's especially why it is important to really perform the "disturbing" experiments.
Many people are dissatisfied of quantum physic because it lacks an explanation compatible with common sense. This gives some idea like Broglie–Bohm theory, that are not very successful. They may hope that quantum theory will be replaced by another theory, a better one and one you can understand.
The thing is, outcomes of Alain Aspect experiment are facts. If another theory is to replace quantum mechanics, it must explain these facts. So this new theory will have some kind of weirdness.
In other words, these experiments shows that quantum theory is not bizarre : the world is bizarre. However, it is bizarre only if you want to stick with the common sense we inherited from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we can understand it quite well with modern physics.
On the philosophical consequence of quantum physics, I have read and recommend this book by Bernard d'Espagnat "Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts".
(I only regret this book doesn't really analyses Everett theory as well as other concepts.) |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | The experiments weren't tests of entanglement as such, but of [Bell's inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem).
J. S. Bell proved, from assumptions that seemed simple and obviously correct, a result that was inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Many people believed that QM had to be correct and therefore that there had to be something wrong with the assumptions (though it wasn't clear what). Others thought it was plausible that the assumptions were correct and QM might actually be wrong. The arguments on both sides were good enough that it was worth settling the question experimentally.
I disagree with the accepted answer which basically just says "we should test everything". We can't test everything because we don't have infinite resources. The most basic criterion that any proposed experiment should satisfy before we fund it is that there be at least two different outcomes it could plausibly have. OP questioned the sense of doing a test of EPR on that basis, and I think they were right to do so. Before Bell's theorem, there really was no sense in a "test of entanglement" because no one (not even EPR) had come up with a reason to believe that the result of any particular experiment would be anything other than what QM predicted. EPR argued that QM was incomplete, but didn't know how a more complete theory would differ in its predictions. | EPR might seems a thought experiment, but it has been translated into an actual physic experiment, especially by physicist Alain Aspect.
You say quantum physic gives bizarre conclusion, that it is in an uncomfortable position, or that "philosophy of quantum mechanic" is at doubt. That's especially why it is important to really perform the "disturbing" experiments.
Many people are dissatisfied of quantum physic because it lacks an explanation compatible with common sense. This gives some idea like Broglie–Bohm theory, that are not very successful. They may hope that quantum theory will be replaced by another theory, a better one and one you can understand.
The thing is, outcomes of Alain Aspect experiment are facts. If another theory is to replace quantum mechanics, it must explain these facts. So this new theory will have some kind of weirdness.
In other words, these experiments shows that quantum theory is not bizarre : the world is bizarre. However, it is bizarre only if you want to stick with the common sense we inherited from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we can understand it quite well with modern physics.
On the philosophical consequence of quantum physics, I have read and recommend this book by Bernard d'Espagnat "Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts".
(I only regret this book doesn't really analyses Everett theory as well as other concepts.) |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | A thought experiment is not really an experiment, but an idea. Science requires people to be able to test ideas with reproducible experiments. I can't reproduce a thought "experiment".
A reproducible physical experiment produces physical observations. See "[Empirical research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research)". | The experiments weren't tests of entanglement as such, but of [Bell's inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem).
J. S. Bell proved, from assumptions that seemed simple and obviously correct, a result that was inconsistent with quantum mechanics. Many people believed that QM had to be correct and therefore that there had to be something wrong with the assumptions (though it wasn't clear what). Others thought it was plausible that the assumptions were correct and QM might actually be wrong. The arguments on both sides were good enough that it was worth settling the question experimentally.
I disagree with the accepted answer which basically just says "we should test everything". We can't test everything because we don't have infinite resources. The most basic criterion that any proposed experiment should satisfy before we fund it is that there be at least two different outcomes it could plausibly have. OP questioned the sense of doing a test of EPR on that basis, and I think they were right to do so. Before Bell's theorem, there really was no sense in a "test of entanglement" because no one (not even EPR) had come up with a reason to believe that the result of any particular experiment would be anything other than what QM predicted. EPR argued that QM was incomplete, but didn't know how a more complete theory would differ in its predictions. |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | What you seem to not get from the paper is that the EPR-thought experiment actually made a prediction: It predicted that there are correlations within quantum systems that are stronger than in any possible classical system or any local hidden variable theory. The "spooky action at a distance" is just failing classical intuition. Don't read too much into it (I'll comment more below), let's first examine the stronger correlations:
This thought (that bipartite quantum states can exhibit stronger correlations than classically possible) is not really well presented in the EPR paper - and I believe that this is one reason, why experimentalists ignored it for decades. But other people, most prominently perhaps Bell, derived equations that hold for any classical system but do not hold for some entangled states - the easiest example being the [CHSH-inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality). This is a testible quantity: You can produce states and test, whether they violate this inequality, if they do, that's a hallmark for a genuinely quantum phenomenon.
But why would you try to show this phenomenon over hundreds of kilometres? A few metres should be enough, shouldn't it? To show the existence of this phenomenon, a few metres would certainly be more than enough. The enterprise of producing entangled pairs over larger and larger distances that has only been tried recently and its due to the already linked to **quantum teleportation** protocol: While it is not possible to transmit an unknown quantum state via measurements and classical communication (i.e. phone calls), it is possible to transmit it by using entangled states. This opens possibilities for cryptography and information transmission, but for it to work, you'll need entangled states over long distances.
But what about spooky action at a distance and how does this not contradict the theory of relativity, which doesn't allow for instantaneous information transfer? The EPR paper was very much concerned with this "spooky action at a distance", but it is just a term stemming from classical intuition. Entangled states cannot transmit information faster than light (see multiple threads on this topic here, there is a mathematical account e.g. here: [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot)). | >
> And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
>
>
>
I think you will find that the technology is important in [communication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_cryptography). Quantum cryptography is a way of sending secure messages with, for example, entangled photons used to send a key. If photons are intercepted between the sender and the receiver then the photons are lost and the information never reaches the receiver. The sender and receiver can tell something is amiss. If sender and receiver communicate successfully they can be sure that noone was able to listen in. The unique information passed between the sender and receiver can enables them to, for example share a private key, and communicate securely. The details can be read [here](http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/43793.pdf) and [here](http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/lukishova/QuantumOpticsLab/2010/OPT253_reports/Justin_Essay.pdf).
So ... it is not possible to communicate by directly organizing a series of quantum states to be sent from one place to another, but it is possible to send information in the form of a random sequence of information from one place to another securely which can then used by sender and receiver to communicate securely.
I am not sure how much people had in mind quantum cryptography when they started these experiments, but it is an interesting spin-off that has come from this work.
(hope the wikipedia article linked above is helpful) |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | What you seem to not get from the paper is that the EPR-thought experiment actually made a prediction: It predicted that there are correlations within quantum systems that are stronger than in any possible classical system or any local hidden variable theory. The "spooky action at a distance" is just failing classical intuition. Don't read too much into it (I'll comment more below), let's first examine the stronger correlations:
This thought (that bipartite quantum states can exhibit stronger correlations than classically possible) is not really well presented in the EPR paper - and I believe that this is one reason, why experimentalists ignored it for decades. But other people, most prominently perhaps Bell, derived equations that hold for any classical system but do not hold for some entangled states - the easiest example being the [CHSH-inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality). This is a testible quantity: You can produce states and test, whether they violate this inequality, if they do, that's a hallmark for a genuinely quantum phenomenon.
But why would you try to show this phenomenon over hundreds of kilometres? A few metres should be enough, shouldn't it? To show the existence of this phenomenon, a few metres would certainly be more than enough. The enterprise of producing entangled pairs over larger and larger distances that has only been tried recently and its due to the already linked to **quantum teleportation** protocol: While it is not possible to transmit an unknown quantum state via measurements and classical communication (i.e. phone calls), it is possible to transmit it by using entangled states. This opens possibilities for cryptography and information transmission, but for it to work, you'll need entangled states over long distances.
But what about spooky action at a distance and how does this not contradict the theory of relativity, which doesn't allow for instantaneous information transfer? The EPR paper was very much concerned with this "spooky action at a distance", but it is just a term stemming from classical intuition. Entangled states cannot transmit information faster than light (see multiple threads on this topic here, there is a mathematical account e.g. here: [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot)). | EPR might seems a thought experiment, but it has been translated into an actual physic experiment, especially by physicist Alain Aspect.
You say quantum physic gives bizarre conclusion, that it is in an uncomfortable position, or that "philosophy of quantum mechanic" is at doubt. That's especially why it is important to really perform the "disturbing" experiments.
Many people are dissatisfied of quantum physic because it lacks an explanation compatible with common sense. This gives some idea like Broglie–Bohm theory, that are not very successful. They may hope that quantum theory will be replaced by another theory, a better one and one you can understand.
The thing is, outcomes of Alain Aspect experiment are facts. If another theory is to replace quantum mechanics, it must explain these facts. So this new theory will have some kind of weirdness.
In other words, these experiments shows that quantum theory is not bizarre : the world is bizarre. However, it is bizarre only if you want to stick with the common sense we inherited from our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we can understand it quite well with modern physics.
On the philosophical consequence of quantum physics, I have read and recommend this book by Bernard d'Espagnat "Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts".
(I only regret this book doesn't really analyses Everett theory as well as other concepts.) |
148,761 | This question comes from someone who is interested in Physics but with no theoretical background.
In 1936, EPR presented the thought experiment which later came to be known and quantum entanglement.
I understand that the thought experiment reflects the bizarre conclusions of quantum theory, i.e. observation of a state of a particle at one place would let that observer know the state of the correlated particle (light years away) even without observing it. And since quantum theory says that the state of a particle is always in a fuzzy state unless you observe it, this implies that the other particle is getting affected without even observing it...... hence spooky action at a distance ...... which doesn't quite fit with traditional Newtonian physics.
The EPR theory as a thought experiment is quite understandable to me.
What I do not understand is, why did scientists, decades later, build tunnels of several kilometers and sent two entangled particles to each end, and then measure the state of those particles to ascertain quantum entanglement.
I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
As far as I have understood the EPR experiment was a thought experiment that kind of throws quantum theory in an uncomfortable position. But its an experiment that cannot be disproven ---- co-relates are co-relates. It just puts the philosophy of quantum mechanics to doubt.
And you cannot communicate information through entanglement anyway. So my question again : why the experiments?
PS : Please, if possible, provide me with relevant links to learn more about this topic. I don't trust random blogs on the net, and the Wikipedia article is just difficult to understand. | 2014/11/25 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/148761",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/132357/"
] | Even for things that seem very clear from the theory, you will want to check them. You asked
>
> I mean, what were they expecting ----- were they expecting the states of the particles to be not in co-relation? How would they explain for that?
>
>
>
Well, of course they were expecting the entanglement. But finding that this is NOT there, would have been a huge thing - Quantum Mechanics needed to be amended!! As much sense as a theory might make, it must be subject to experimental verification in all aspects.
Similarly, most physicists were convinced for decades that the Higgs boson must be there and still we build ever larger experiments looking for it, since if we had NOT found the Higgs boson, we would have to re-think a large bit of what we know about particle physics. | What you seem to not get from the paper is that the EPR-thought experiment actually made a prediction: It predicted that there are correlations within quantum systems that are stronger than in any possible classical system or any local hidden variable theory. The "spooky action at a distance" is just failing classical intuition. Don't read too much into it (I'll comment more below), let's first examine the stronger correlations:
This thought (that bipartite quantum states can exhibit stronger correlations than classically possible) is not really well presented in the EPR paper - and I believe that this is one reason, why experimentalists ignored it for decades. But other people, most prominently perhaps Bell, derived equations that hold for any classical system but do not hold for some entangled states - the easiest example being the [CHSH-inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality). This is a testible quantity: You can produce states and test, whether they violate this inequality, if they do, that's a hallmark for a genuinely quantum phenomenon.
But why would you try to show this phenomenon over hundreds of kilometres? A few metres should be enough, shouldn't it? To show the existence of this phenomenon, a few metres would certainly be more than enough. The enterprise of producing entangled pairs over larger and larger distances that has only been tried recently and its due to the already linked to **quantum teleportation** protocol: While it is not possible to transmit an unknown quantum state via measurements and classical communication (i.e. phone calls), it is possible to transmit it by using entangled states. This opens possibilities for cryptography and information transmission, but for it to work, you'll need entangled states over long distances.
But what about spooky action at a distance and how does this not contradict the theory of relativity, which doesn't allow for instantaneous information transfer? The EPR paper was very much concerned with this "spooky action at a distance", but it is just a term stemming from classical intuition. Entangled states cannot transmit information faster than light (see multiple threads on this topic here, there is a mathematical account e.g. here: [The choice of measurement basis on one half of an entangled state affects the other half. Can this be used to communicate faster than light?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100864/the-choice-of-measurement-basis-on-one-half-of-an-entangled-state-affects-the-ot)). |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | That's a **counterexample**.
From [Oxford](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/counterexample):
>
> An example that opposes or contradicts an idea or theory.
>
>
>
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterexample) has it stronger than that:
>
> an example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory.
>
>
>
(I personally would have written it as **counter-example**, but all the dictionaries I looked at excluded the hyphen, so it looks like the non-hyphenated version is preferred.) | I think that the term you are looking for is ***disprove by contradiction***. However, I think that Morton's ***counterexample*** is also a very good answer. |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | That's a **counterexample**.
From [Oxford](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/counterexample):
>
> An example that opposes or contradicts an idea or theory.
>
>
>
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterexample) has it stronger than that:
>
> an example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory.
>
>
>
(I personally would have written it as **counter-example**, but all the dictionaries I looked at excluded the hyphen, so it looks like the non-hyphenated version is preferred.) | rebuttal, *n*
[rebut](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rebut) verb (rebuts, rebutting, rebutted)
[with object]
>
> 1 Claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false:
>
> *he had to rebut charges of acting for the convenience of his political friends*
>
>
>
syn: *refutation, denial, countering, invalidation, negation, contradiction*
"now that you've heard the accusations, have you a rebuttal?" (source: Google Search) |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | That's a **counterexample**.
From [Oxford](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/counterexample):
>
> An example that opposes or contradicts an idea or theory.
>
>
>
[Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/counterexample) has it stronger than that:
>
> an example that refutes or disproves a proposition or theory.
>
>
>
(I personally would have written it as **counter-example**, but all the dictionaries I looked at excluded the hyphen, so it looks like the non-hyphenated version is preferred.) | If you wish to convey the idea that your colleague was attempting to falsely convey the notion of truth in his argument you could say:
>
> A colleague argued **speciously** that writing requires big hands. I rebutted
> with my own evidence which exposed his artifice.
>
>
> |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | rebuttal, *n*
[rebut](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rebut) verb (rebuts, rebutting, rebutted)
[with object]
>
> 1 Claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false:
>
> *he had to rebut charges of acting for the convenience of his political friends*
>
>
>
syn: *refutation, denial, countering, invalidation, negation, contradiction*
"now that you've heard the accusations, have you a rebuttal?" (source: Google Search) | I think that the term you are looking for is ***disprove by contradiction***. However, I think that Morton's ***counterexample*** is also a very good answer. |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | I think that the term you are looking for is ***disprove by contradiction***. However, I think that Morton's ***counterexample*** is also a very good answer. | If you wish to convey the idea that your colleague was attempting to falsely convey the notion of truth in his argument you could say:
>
> A colleague argued **speciously** that writing requires big hands. I rebutted
> with my own evidence which exposed his artifice.
>
>
> |
252,824 | What is a word or phrase for argument that shows the presupposition is false?
**E.g.**:
>
> Someone said writing requires big hands. I showed them that someone can write well with small hands. Therefore, I have argued against what he said.
>
>
>
What is this method of argument known as? | 2015/06/16 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/252824",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/125159/"
] | rebuttal, *n*
[rebut](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rebut) verb (rebuts, rebutting, rebutted)
[with object]
>
> 1 Claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false:
>
> *he had to rebut charges of acting for the convenience of his political friends*
>
>
>
syn: *refutation, denial, countering, invalidation, negation, contradiction*
"now that you've heard the accusations, have you a rebuttal?" (source: Google Search) | If you wish to convey the idea that your colleague was attempting to falsely convey the notion of truth in his argument you could say:
>
> A colleague argued **speciously** that writing requires big hands. I rebutted
> with my own evidence which exposed his artifice.
>
>
> |
93,815 | I'm using BeagleBoard-xM McSPI to drive an MCP42050 digital potentiometer. Before using the SPI chip itself I'll try bitbanging through 3 GPIOs (but my question relates to both configurations).
BB outputs 1.8V for logic high (and, I think, 0V for low). But MCP42050 needs >3.5V for high (VDD = 5V, which is a must) and <1.5V for low.
What I need? A level shifter of course (3 actually, for each SPI signal). The problem is: I need to make one using only shelf components (common BJTs, resistors, FETs and so on).
I've seen [this question](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/24011/level-shifting-1-8v-to-5v-with-n-channel-fet) and one of its answers almost resolved my issues.
Based on Glaser's solution (most voted), I've though myself to cascade two NPN BJTs sharing common emitter. Input signal connected to first BJT's base (limited by a R1 resistor). First BJT's collector connected to second BJT's base. And both collectors connected to 5V through two resistors (R2 and R3).
I could not find in MCP42050 datasheet how much current do I need to drive its input, so I suspect very little is needed. And that's why I've thought about a high value for all resistors, like 4k7 or 5k6.
Additional info: I think I don't need very high frequencies. The higher frequency involved is SCK signal, in bursts of 16 cycles, and BB-xM McSPI can work with frequencies as low as 4kHz (it froze when I tried 3kHz). The shift is unidirectional.
Here my questions:
1. Will it work?
2. How to compute R1, R2 and R3?
3. It would be very nice to have both BJTs in a single component (Darlington pairs come to mind), but I don't know whether there is a shelf component for this. Do you know?
4. I don't mind loosing some BJTs (to runaway breakdown, for example); but I do mind burning my BB-xM. How can I protect it against such accidents (specially when fiddling with resistors values)?
5. Any other suggestion (instead of my cascading BJTs circuitry)?
Thanks. Sorry if they are newbie questions; they'll get harder as I improve my skills.
**Edit**
As noted by NickT there is a better circuit, using a single FET plus 1 resistor.
But now I stepped in another problem: I just found that BSN10A is not that common. Been to 6 local shops and no one have even heard of it. So now I'm looking for an equivalent component or circuitry.
Besides, the 4th question is still valid: how can I protect the Beagle? | 2013/12/16 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/93815",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/34203/"
] | There is also a single-NPN possibility in [that question](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/82104/single-transistor-level-up-shifter) that may work for your setup provided the output impedance of the 1.8V part is much smaller than the input impedance of the 5V part (this is certainly the case here). You'd have to adjust the resistor values.
Disclaimer : I'm the op of the linked question, but didn't use that setup extensively (I ultimately went for the 2-diode route). | For just doing logic level conversion (not peripheral driving) I simply use 74-series buffers like the 74HC244-- It's sensitive enough for the ~2V and output at VCC(5V) |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.