readings - Appending 内 to a company name is read ない or うち?

For example, if I say マイクロソフト内のパートナーシップは強いです, is the 内 here read as うち or ない?

Answer

「内」 in the form:

「Proper Noun + 内」

is always read 「ない」. I just could not think of an exception to this "rule".

thermodynamics - Does all processes that consume energy from outside result in negative entropy change?

In any spontaneous process entropy increases.In biological systems disordered elements are converted into highly ordered tissues etc(-ve entropy change) which make up living organisms. But, it requires energy from the sun(ultimately). So,does that mean all processes that consume energy from outside result in negative entropy change? Endothermic reactions consume energy in the form of heat from outside so, is all endothermic reactions causing the entropy to decrease?

Answer

Entropy increases in a spontaneous evolution of an isolated system… other than that, there is no general law on the evolution of entropy.

---

does that mean all processes that consume energy from outside result in negative entropy change?

No. When you heat a solid, it increases its entropy.

endothermic reactions causing the entropy to decrease?

Endothermic reactions which cause entropy to decrease have both ∆H positive and ∆S negative, so they will have a positive ∆G, i.e. their are not thermodynamically favorable.

grammar - Help with には and にとって

I need help understanding why にとって cannot be used in this circumstance:

その仕事は私｛には/*にとって｝出来ない。 ( * denotes unacceptable)

This is what I read:

にとって cannot be used when it marks an experiencer or agent

But I get confused when this sentence is acceptable:

これは我々にとって無視できない問題だ。

Isn't 我々 an agent? 我々 is the one who is doing the ignoring right? So what am I understanding wrongly?

Answer

にとって 'As from the point of view of ' is a sentence modifier. The sentence has to be meaningful without it, and it implies that its truth depends on whose point of view it is described from.

これは(無視できない)問題だ

'This is a(n) (unignorable) problem.'

我我にとって、これは(無視できない)問題だ
'For us, this is a(n) (unignorable) problem.'

これは、我我にとって、(無視できない)問題だ　　[これは can be moved to the front.]
'Regarding this, from the point of view of us, it is a(n) (unignorable) problem.'

に in question here is a dative case marker, which optionally marks the subject of the embedded clause of a potential verb.

我我がこれを無視する
'We ignore this.'

[我我{が/に}これを無視]できる　[する is deleted before できる due to the irregularity of potential form.]
'It is possible that we ignore this.'

これは、我我{が/に}無視できる　　[これは can be topicalized and moved to the front.]
'Regarding this, it is possible that we ignore it.'

As usual in Japanese, the subject can be omitted, and be understood implicitly:

これは、(我我{が/に})無視できる
'It is possible that we ignore this.'

Attaching にとって to this sentence does not work semantically because the possibility is independent of the point of view.

* 我我にとって、これは(我我{が/に})無視できる
　'For us, it is possible that we ignore this.'

gas laws - Why don't heavy and light gases separate in the atmosphere?

Everyone must have heard that balloons are filled with helium, and the fact associated with it that helium gas is light and light gases always go upward.

There comes a question to mind: if the molar mass of $\ce{CO2}$ is greater than that of $\ce{O2}$ and $\ce{N2}$, then why doesn't $\ce{CO2}$ occupy the lower layer of the atmosphere, since it is heavier than $\ce{O2}$ and $\ce{N2}$, as in the case of balloons, where helium being light rise upwards.

Answer

That's because of two reasons. One is entropy, the ultimate force of chaos and disorder. Sure, gases would like to be arranged according to their density, but even above that, they would like to be mixed, because mixing creates a great deal of entropy. If you prevent the mixing, then they would behave just as you expected. Indeed, a balloon filled with $\ce{CO2}$ would drop right to the floor and remain there.

On the other hand, if you allow mixing, light gases wouldn't necessarily go upward. Just pierce that balloon with helium, and... Well, you won't actually see much, but in fact, the helium will disperse in the atmosphere and remain there. True, its contents in the upper layers would be somewhat higher, but only somewhat. It is not like a layer of pure helium floating atop all those $\ce{O2}$ and $\ce{N2}$.

The importance of entropy is by no means limited to gases. Think of all that salt in the oceans. Salt is much more dense than water; wouldn't it just drop to the ocean floor? Well, no, it rather wouldn't.

The other reason is the constant action of winds and currents mentioned by Zhe. They stir the atmosphere (or sea water, for that matter) and make it even more uniform than it might have been otherwise.

nevua prophecy - Can Isaiah 11:2 be used a basis for the belief that the king messiah will be a prophet?

If a recent thread, I asked, "Will the king messiah be a prophet?"

@b a cited a source from Rambam's Hilkhot Teshuva, 9.2 which states, "מפני שאותו המלך שיעמוד מזרע דויד בעל חכמה יהיה יתר משלמה, ונביא גדול הוא קרוב ממשה רבנו." But, I did not see Rambam directly refer to an actual pasuk that explicitly states that the king messiah would be a prophet. (However, I do realize that a lot of ideas or notions are not explicitly stated in scripture, but otherwise inferred through various exegetical techniques.)

So, I did a little research using the technique of inference by analogy.

I suppose it is the ruach elohim that causes one to prophecy [truthfully].

For example, in Num. 11:25, it is written,

And Adonai descended in a cloud, and He spoke to him, and He took of the spirit that was upon him and put [it] upon the seventy elders. And, it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did not [prophesy] again.

וירד יהוה בענן וידבר אליו ויאצל מן־הרוח אשר עליו ויתן על־שבעים איש הזקנים ויהי כנוח עליהם הרוח ויתנבאו ולא יספו

Now, in Isaiah 11:2, a pasuk that is often cited as referring to the future king messiah, it is written,

And the spirit of Adonai will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Adonai

ונחה עליו רוח יהוה רוח חכמה ובינה רוח עצה וגבורה רוח דעת ויראת יהוה

Based on the similar phrases employed in each pasuk, is it an accurate inference from analogy (edit: binyan av) that the king messiah would indeed be able to prophesy (and thus, be a prophet) since the spirit of Adonai rests upon him, just as the seventy elders prophesied "when the spirit [of Adonai] rested upon them"?

acid base - Titration curve graph, finding exact point of the equivalence point

I plotted all my data points and made this graph in excel. Now I need to find the volume of titrant required to read the equivalence point, as well as the pH after 18.5 mL of titrant have been added. If there any... best/correct way to go about this or anything in excel I should use to point the exact points on the line I have? Or am I just taking my best guess looking at it here?

Answer

Assuming the titration involves a strong acid and a strong base, the equivalence point is where the pH equals 7. From inspection alone and the use of a ruler, you can approximate that to be at 25.88mL of NaOH.

To show the equivalence point on a the curve, just draw a line from where the pH is equal to 7 and line it up with the titration curve. I show this in the attached image.

To calculate the pH at 18.5mL, you need to know the molarity of the acid, for which you first need the identity of the acid (for stoichiometric purposes) and the acid's concentration which you can from your titration data. Then you calculate the number of excess moles of acid present after reacting with the 18.5mL of NaOH titrant. The pH is the negative logarithm of the concentration of the protons. Remember that the moles of protons is not necessarily equal to the moles of acid since acids can release more than one proton.

halacha - Are thoughts of sin punished halachically?

Inspired by this question, I got interested in the question of halakhic punishment for thoughts of sin?

In general, the Torah is not so concerned and doesn't judge how people feel or what their desires are. It is mainly concerned in how we act.

On one side

• the gmara in Kiddushin 40a explicitly says that Hashem doesn’t regard a bad thought that doesn’t lead to action as an action (artscroll comments “hence there is no punishment for the thought”)


• another gmara (end of Bava Batra 164b) says all men think of sin every single day (presumably meaning it is not punishable)

On the other side

• later in Kiddushin 40a the gmara says that thoughts of sins one has performed and now considers permitted are punished


• in Shabbat 64a we see the army returning from the war in Midian offered a korban to atone against their lustful thoughts


• R Chaim mi Volozhin writes (Nefesh HaChaim, gate 1, ch. 4) that the body is like a mishkan, the mind is the kodesh hakodashim and thinking unclean thoughts is a desecration even greater than defiling the Kodesh Hakodoshim since the Mishkan is physical and the mind is even more holy and spiritual

So how is the halakha judging thoughts of sin? Are specific halakhic works codifying this (as opposed to more philosophical discussions)?