Friday, 30 September 2016

Same word - written with kana and kanji in two places in the same paragraph. Why?



I am aware that some Japanese words can be written in either kana or kanji and that the rules about it are not set in stone. This has already been discussed in some questions and answers here (e.g. Usage of kanji for words usually written in kana) but my question is more specific.


My question is about why sometimes the same word would appear once written in kanji and once written in kana very close to each other. For example, in Haruki Murakami's story I'm reading now (「かえるくん、東京を救う」), there's two different way of spelling of 何/なに and 僕/ぼく within the same short paragraph. This is a continuous utterance by the same one character in the story.



みみずくんがその暗い頭の中でを考えているのか[...]


[...]彼はなにも考えていないのだとは推測します。


ぼくには説明のつけられないことです。



Why is it spelled differently like that? Does it have any meaning? Is it just style? The sentences with 「考えている」 are very similar to each other, yet 何/なに is spelled differently.


The same difference in spelling is not limited to those words or this paragraph. It happens throughout the story and affects different words.


UPDATE



I feel that the answers below, while helpful, didn't really provide the ultimate answer to my question (or maybe such an answer just doesn't exist). I especially feel that concentrating on ぼく written with kana to mean childish language is not on the mark as the context of the story doesn't suggest that (I don't blame the helpful people who answered the question for that - they don't know this context).


I can also add an example from another story 「蜂蜜パイ」 from the same collection of short stories. Again two different ways of spelling are in the same passage, close to each other, spoken by the narrator this time.



[...]今度は左手を袖の中にひっこめた
それはすぐに袖の中に引っ込められ、[...]





grammar - How to ask to whom an item belongs to


The given answer to the question I'm supposed to ask in my workbook is:




それは たけしさんの ぼうし です。



But I can't figure out if my question should be:



このぼうしは だれの ですか。



OR



だれの このぼうし ですか。




Thank you!




parshanut torah comment - Do religious Jews generally believe the serpent of Garden of Eden was Satan?


Upon reading the recent CNN article, That Actually Isn't In The Bible, one not-really-in-the-Bible misconception they cite is the idea that serpent in the Garden of Eden was the Satan.


The article cites several biblical scholars who correctly say that the Satan is not mentioned in the creation account, and indeed, not at all in Genesis. (Of course, the Satan is mentioned in the Tenakh, in particular, in Chronicles and Job.)


Even though Genesis doesn't explicitly call out the serpent as the Satan, this nonetheless seems to be a reasonable conclusion among some theologians, particularly in light of the Satan's dealings with G-d in Job.


My question is, what is the general consensus about the serpent in the Garden of Eden? Do scholars believe this was the Satan mentioned in Job?



Whether the creation account is interpreted literally or allegorically, we are left with this figure, represented by a snake, that draws humans towards evil. Who is that figure, according to religious Jews and Jewish scholars?



Answer



Among the classical Torah commentators, there are those that interpret that whole Garden of Eden story as being literal historical fact, while others interpret it allegorically.


The main authority who treats it as allegory is Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Volume 2, Chapter 30), and according to his interpretation, the snake represents a person's "appetitive faculty" (the part of the Aristotelian model of the psych that controls a person's emotions and desires).


Those that interpret the story literally, though, differ in how they explain the talking snake:



  • The snake from creation was an intelligent animal that talked, thought, and walked upright like a human. Only after its sin was it downgraded to the level of all the other animals (or perhaps below the level of most animals). [See Ibn Ezra (Bereshis 3:1).]

  • The snake is actually the Torah's way of referring to Satan. (As @avi noted, the Satan is traditionally believed as being the evil inclination and/or the angel of death.) In this case, either there was no actual snake at all, or the Satan appeared in the form of a snake. [R' Saadia Gaon brought in Ibn Ezra.]

  • There was an actual snake, but it never really spoke. The Torah "speaks in the language of Man" when it writes "The snake said...", the same way one would say "That food is saying 'Eat me'". The snake, by climbing on the Tree of Knowledge and eating its fruits was "telling" Eve that the fruits were good and harmless. [See Abarbanel (Bereshis 3).]



Rambam and Interpreting Bereishit as Allegorical


Rabbi Shlomo Riskin makes the following statement in his Sept. 27th, 2013 commentary on Bereishit in the Jerusalem Post:



Furthermore, Maimonides, in his Guide for the Perplexed, interprets all of the early biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.



Does this mean that Rambam didn't believe that anything up until the time of Abraham was literally true?


Is this a reasonable interpretation of Rambam's position as set out in the Guide?




halacha - Wearing cruciform orders


Most European chivalric orders, both historic and otherwise, as well as many other awards issued were cruciform (for different examples of styles, see the Pour le Mérite, the Iron Cross, and the Victoria Cross). All of the orders listed above, as well as many others, were open to Jews and many of them required display of the insignia by recipients.


Would wearing the cruciform insignia of orders be allowed for the recipients, from a halachic perspective?*§




*The issue that I could see would be the wearing of something shaped like a cross, as it is associated specifically with Christianity.


§I have heard that even the WWII issue of the Iron Cross may have been issued to individuals who were openly Jewish. This would introduce an additional problem, as the hakenkreuz (swastika) is associated with pagan and Hindu religious symbology.



Answer



Most of the poskim deem the cross as something that Christians remember Jesus by, but not as an actual tool of worshipping. Therefore most agree that you are allowed to use it for pleasure, etc.



Thus say: Terumat HaDeshen in Ra'avyah's name, the Rama, the Ritva, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. This was taken from the following source (daily halacha based on Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's teachings).


Interestingly, Rabbi Yaakov Meir (the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi appointed under the British Mandate of Palestine), received such medals as the Order of the British Empire (and more), and more, and he had no problem wearing them:


enter image description here


parshanut torah comment - What is the problem with dogs?


Deuteronomy 23:19:




לֹא תָבִיא אֶתְנַן זוֹנָה וּמְחִיר כֶּלֶב בֵּית יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְכָל נֶדֶר כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם



Why does the Torah have a problem with using the money from the sale of a dog, while apparently not any other non Kosher animals? What is it about dogs that the Torah has an issue with?




tefilla - Too fast or no minyan?


Suppose the only minyan available for someone to attend is one which moves far too fast for him. Even with arriving early and starting ahead of time, he only has time to say a fraction of psukei d'zimra if he wants to daven shmoneh esrei with the minyan. Suppose it would either not be possible for him to arrive early enough to daven the whole davening in time for shmoneh esrei with the group or extremely inconvenient (such as a very early pre-work minyan). Would it be preferable for him to stay home and daven on his own while saying all of psukei d'zimra with focus and attention, or is it better for him to rush, not saying all of it, but saying shmoneh esrei with a minyan?



Answer



According to My Rav




  • Say Elokai Neshama, Bircat HaTorah, and Bircat HaShachar

  • Say Baruch She'Amar, Ashrei, and Yishtabach


If you can put on tallit and tefillin, and say just the above passages, in the time that it takes the rest of the minyan to say all of Psukei D'Zimra, then it's better to do so, in order to pray with a minyan.


This is assuming that the person is able to keep up with the minyan for shema and shemoneh esreh itself.


If not, (quote from above link)



If one notices that he does not have time to say these berachot [bircat hatorah, elokai, bircat hashachar] and Ashrei and still succeed in praying with the minyan, he should pray individually without omitting anything.



sources mekorot - Origin of "May God Avenge His Blood" (הי"ד)


What is the origin (i.e earliest usages) of appending הי"ד ("May God Avenge His Blood") after the name of a murder victim.




grammar - What's the difference between saying 私は日本語を話しません vs 私は日本語が話しません?



私は日本語を話しません


私は日本語が話しません



I've seen both versions on the Internet. Maybe only one is the correct version? Maybe both?



Answer



日本語が話しません is ungrammatical. It sounds very unnatural. The following is the summary of what is OK and what is not:





  • 私は日本語話しません: OK

  • 私は日本語話しません: OK

  • 私は日本語話しません: Wrong!

  • 私は日本語話せません: OK

  • 私は日本語話せません: OK

  • 私は日本語話せません: OK




話す is a transitive verb (like English "speak"), so basically its object must be marked with を. But there are several exceptions you have to consider.



  • Exception (1): When the object is decorated by the topic marker, をは turns into は (or は replaces を).


  • Exception (2): When the verb is potential, the object can be marked with が, too. (話せる is the potential form of 話す)


  • Exception (3): Using two は in one sentence is fine in a negative sentence. 私は日本語は話します is still grammatical, but the second は will have a strong contrastive meaning.



Thursday, 29 September 2016

sexuality - Does the talmud promote pedophilia?



I found a surprising claim from a conservative Christian web site about halacha and relations with children. Is what they say actually true or is this wrong?


From http://truthtellers.org/alerts/Judaisms-Pedophilia-Begins-with-Rabbi-ben-Yohai.html:






The Talmud, highest authority for modern Talmudic Judaism, endorses pedophilia. It calls it "Halachah" or binding Jewish law!


The Talmudic rabbi most instrumental in persuading rabbis today to indulge in pedophilia is 2nd century A.D. Simeon ben Yohai. It's hard to imagine a rabbinic sage more esteemed than ben Yohai. He is credited by Ultra-Orthodox Jews as the author of the Zohar, or Kabbalah. Every year in Meron in Israel (where ben Yohai died), more than 10,000 Hasidic Jews gather for a week of singing, dancing, and praising ben Yohai, who may well be Kabbalist Judaism's most venerated authority.


In Orthodox Judaism, the most ancient first and second A.D. rabbis, the "Tannaim," are considered most authoritative. This is largely because they lived in Palestine closest in time to the Pharisees, who, originating in Babylon, created the Mishnah (oral law), which later became written down as the Babylonian Talmud. Some “Tanna” receive greater respect from Orthodox Jews than does Moses. Jesus accused the oral law of "making the law of God of none effect."


The Talmud is the greatest religious authority for observant Jews today. It teaches that when sages of ben Yohai’s stature pronounced new laws, they did so out of the memory of what God had taught them in heaven. The Talmud says such memory was imparted to ben Yohai's teacher, Rabbi Akiba: when Moses died he went to heaven and beheld Rabbi Akiba “expounding wondrously on the Torah.” Thus, when ben Yohai authorizes pedophilia in the Talmud, such permission becomes law for Orthodox Jews for all time.


In Yebamoth 60b the Talmud says:


It was taught: R. Simeon ben Yohai stated: ‘A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest. For it is said, But all the women children that have not known men by lying with them, keep for yourselves; and Phinehas surely was with them.’





Surely this is a misquote...right? Edit: thanks for the answers!





downsampling - What if the Down sampling factor is not an integer?


I have developed a function which down samples an input signal.Say I have an input signal with a sampling rate of 512 samples/sec and would like to down sample it 128 samples/sec, then the down sampling factor is discrete and it is 4. In this case, I believe that the input signal will successfully be down sampled to 128 samples/sec without any loss of information.But, what if we have to down sample a signal from a sampling rate of 511 samples/sec to 127 samples/sec,then the down sampling factor 4.0236. When I run my code for a down sampling non integer factor, I still get the output down sampled signal,but I am sure that, since I down sampled the signal by an non-integer factor, the output may not be correct and would have lost information.Any methods to overcome this issue or Is there a way to approximate it without damaging the quality of the down sampled signal?


My Understanding - I found a method after a while of researching. In this case we have to initially up sample the input sampling rate followed by down sampling, known as "Multirate conversion". So here is my understanding, Input Sampling rate = 511 b/s and Desired output sampling rate = 127 b/s. So, 127*5 = 635 and 635 -511 = 124. Therefore, i need to up sample 511 b/s by a factor of L = 5 to get 635 and then down sample this 635 by a factor M = 124 to get the desired down sampled output of 127 b/s. What do you have to say?. Please correct me if its wrong or illogical.




Answer



Resampling (by rational or even irrational ratios) can be done by low-pass filtering in conjunction with high quality interpolation of all the samples needed for the new rate, directly. No two-step up-sampling following by downsampling is required (although that is one possible implementation for simple ratios).


A Sinc kernel, being a reconstruction formula, is the ideal interpolator for band-limited sampled waveforms. In practice, a windowed Sinc interpolator is usually as good or better than the FIR or IIR filters used inside other resampling methods.


Also, information may be lost in going to any lower sample rate (even in your original 4:1 resampler) if the original sample data contains higher frequency spectrum that has to be removed by the anti-alias low pass filter (required to prevent aliasing at the lower sample rate).


matlab - Conceptual problem : numberof symbols for nonuniform distribution using entropy : how to determine block size?


A sequence of data of length $N$ can be subdivided into equal sixed blocks each of length (size) $l$. For each block, $w$, we can calculate the entropy known as the block entropy. Considering, entropy calculation by varying the size of the blocks ie., the window size is different. The entropy of the entire sequence is $H_N = 1.99$. I then create subwords using different sized windows : Window = [1,2,4,6,8,10,12] This gives Shannon's entropy for each sub-word (block) as


$H_w = \{H_1 = 1.99119952705784, H_2 = 3.20880064685926, H_4= 4.97725978596446, H_6= 6.10391179247315, H_8= 6.40200948312778,H_{10}=6.44186057426463, H_{12} = 6.45326152085405\}$ respectively.
Out of these entropy values for each block the maximum entropy value is, maxEntropy = 6.4638 for block of size blksze = 12.


My confusion and questions are




  1. Based on these values of block entropy, is it possible to determine what is the optimal length $l$ of the sequence ? Please correct me where wrong.





  2. Can entropy of the whole sequence be less than the block size? For equiprobable occurrece of symbols, $H_N \le log2(4)= 2$ this is the theoretical value. But, when the block size 12 I got entropy for $H_{w} = H_{12} = 6.45326152085405$ which is greater than $H_N = 1.99$. I don't know if this result is correct and what I should expect theoretically.




  3. Is my implementation correct? How to infer the plots?




Details:


Consider a source that emits codewords consisiting of adjacent symbols of length $l$. The sequence length is $N > l$. If the source is binary ($n=2$ symbols), then I have $N(w) = n^l$ possible words of length $l$. Each word is associated with a probability and I need to estimate the probability numerically since it is unknown. Let, $n=4$ and the alphabet set is $A = {1,2,3,4}$. Let the symbol sequence be $b =[2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 2,1, 3,2, 1, 2, 4,\ldots]' $ and $N$ denotes the number of elements in the sequence.


A block of size $l$ is defined as a segment of $l$ consecutive elements of the symbol sequence or in other words a concatenation of several symbols. If $w$ is a symbol sequence of size $l$, then $N(w)$ denotes the number of blocks of $b$ which are identical to $w$.


$p(w)$ is the probability that a block from $b$ is identical to a symbol sequence $w$ of size $l$ i.e. $$p(w) = \frac{N(w)}{n-|w|+1}$$



Let, a symbol sequence of length $N = 10$ be $b = \{1,3,4,1,2,1,1,3,4,2\}$, here the alphabet set is $\mathcal{A} = \{1,2,3,4\}$ and the number of symbols $|\mathcal{A}| = n = 4$. Each symbol can be represented by 4 bits.


Below is an implementation to show entropy calculation for for a data sequence b = randi([1 n],1,N); where N= 100 length of the sequence, $\mathcal{A} = \{1,2,3,4\}$, $|\mathcal{A}|$= n = 4. The entropy of the series is H_N = 1.9823 for N=100


plot Plot on left side (a) shows the effect of block length on Shannon's block entropy. The maximum value of block entropy is reached at block length = 12 and corresponding value is 6.4638 which is greater than $log2(4)$.


Plot on right side (b) shows the effect of block length on Shannon'e entropy rate. From this plot, the maxEntropyRate = 1.9912 for blksze2 = 1 which means considering all the data points, N. What do these mean and which one to select?


What do I infer from these values and how can I apply maximum entropy principle?


clear all
N= 100; %total length of the sequence
n=4; % number of unique symbols (alphabets)
b = randi([1 n],1,N); % creating the sequence
p_1 = sum(b==1)/length(b); %calculating probability

p_2 = sum(b==2)/length(b);
p_3 = sum(b==3)/length(b);
p_4 = sum(b==4)/length(b);


p = [p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4];
H_N = -sum(p(p>0).*log2(p(p>0))) % entropyfor the whole sequence for N =100

Window = [1,2,4,6,8,10,12]; %this is the array of different block size
Base=2;


ShEntropy = zeros(1,length(Window));
for NWindows=1:length(Window)
blk_size = Window(NWindows);
ShEntropy(NWindows) =BlockEntropy(Series,blk_size,Base );% this is H_w
store_entropy(NWindows,:) = [ShEntropy(NWindows),blk_size] ;
EntropyRate(NWindows) = ShEntropy(NWindows)/blk_size ;
store_EntropyRate(NWindows,:) = [EntropyRate(NWindows),blk_size] ;
end
temp1 = sortrows(store_entropy,1);

maxEntropy = temp1(end,1)
blksze1 = temp1(end,2)
figure(1)
subplot(1,2,1)
plot(Window(1:end), ShEntropy(1:end));
subplot(1,2,2)
temp2 = sortrows(store_EntropyRate,1);
maxEntropyRate = temp2(end,1)
blksze2 = temp2(end,2)
plot(Window(1:end), EntropyRate(1:end));

LargestEntropy_Theory =log2(n)


function ShEntropy =BlockEntropy(Series,Window,Base )

n=length(Series);
D=zeros(n,Window); % Pre Allocate Memory
for k=1:Window; D(:,k)=circshift(Series,1-k);end
D=D(1:end-Window+1,:); % Truncate Last Part
%

% Repace each Row with a "SYMBOL"
% in this Case a Number ...............
[K l]=size(D);
for k=1:K; MyData(k)=polyval(D(k,:),Base);end
clear D

UniqueMyData = unique(MyData);
nUniqueMyData = length(UniqueMyData);
FreqMyData = zeros(nUniqueMyData,1); % Initialization
for i = 1:nUniqueMyData

FreqMyData(i) = ....
sum(double(MyData == UniqueMyData(i)));
end
% Calculate sample class probabilities
P = FreqMyData / sum(FreqMyData);
% Calculate entropy in base 2
ShEntropy= -sum(P .* log2(P)); % entropy of each block, H_n
end


words - 縁&端: Are these readings still relevant?



These words bug the heck out of me due to their multiple readings, and I haven't found anything that addresses this problem. Thus, I am going to attempt to compile a list of the ones I'm having trouble with. Please point out any error should you see one, as I guarantee there shall be many. The following definitions are secretly stolen from the dictionary I am using (ルミナス, 研究社). Here the focus is on how they should be read as a single word alone.


縁: へり・ふち・ゆかり・よすが




  1. へり



    物の端{はし} edge;布{ぬの}や着物の hem;コップや茶碗{ちゃわん}など円形の物の brim;畳{たたみ}などの border






  2. ふち



    へり edge; 一般に物の周辺 fringe;崖{がけ}などの brink;眼鏡・帽子の rim;コップなどの brim; 額縁{がくぶち} frame
    例:池の*縁{ふち}(or *縁{へり}); 縁なし・金縁{きんぶち} の眼鏡
    *See below. Could be that only one reading is correct.



    And now a quotation from our buddy, goo辞書:



    「机のふち(へり)に手をつく」「茶碗のふち(へり)」「崖のふち(へり)」のように、物のまわりやまぎわの部分の意では、相通じて用いられる。◇「ふち」には「目のふちを赤くする」とか、「眼鏡のふち」「額 (がく) ぶち」のような、回りの枠をいう使い方もあり、この場合は「へり」は用いない。◇「へり」は、「船べり」「川べり」のように平らなものの周辺部をいうことが多く、さらに周辺部につける飾り物などの意まで広がる。「リボンでへりをつける」「畳のへりがすり切れる」




    Rough translation:
    For the edge or brim of things like desks, rice bowl, teacup, cliffs, etc., both readings (へり & ふち) are interchangeable. However, for things that has a rim, frame, and so on, use ふち (or ぶち as a suffix). As for へり (or べり as a suffix), you want to use it for the border of flat stuff, or adornments added to the border of... stuff.




  3. ゆかり
    The definition seems to overlap with 縁{えん}, a reading I won't bring up.



    繋{つな}がり connection;血縁関係 relation
    例:
    a.) 彼女は私には(?)も*ゆかりもない。 She has no relation to me.

    b.) ここは『蝶々夫人』*ゆかりの地である。 This place is noted in connection with Madame Butterfly.
    I do not know how in the world to read this one.





  4. よすが



    思い出させる物・事 reminder;助け help;手段 means
    例:
    a.) 亡き友が*よすがにと残した詩集 a collection of poems my dead friend left as a reminder of them

    b.) 身を寄せる*よすがもない。 I have nowhere to go for help.







: たん・は・はし・はな




  1. たん (standalone)
    No definition is given, but this reading seems to go with を発する only.




    例:
    a.) その革命は何に*端を発したのか。 What triggered the revolution?
    b.) 夫婦げんかはつまらない事に*端を発することが多い。 A quarrel between a couple often originates in trifles.







  2. edge

    例:山の*端 a mountain ridge





  3. はし
    Again, seems to overlap with は to me.



    末端 end;隅 corner;縁 edge
    例:
    a.) 彼は一番前の列の*端に座った。 He sat at the end of the front row.

    b.) 机の*端にはインクのしみがついていた。 There was an ink stain on the corner of the desk.





  4. はな



    始まり the beginning;出発点 the start;最初 the first
    例:そんなことは*はなから知っていた。 I knew it from the beginning.



    *These two have their own entries: はした金{がね} small sum (of money);端数{はすう} fraction







Bonus confusion:



」―When read as がわ, it means "side," and the reading かわ is becoming less common even when you see 側 alone. When read as そば, it means "a place close to something/somewhere." For 側{がわ}, kanji is usually written, whereas そば is written in kana.





Questions:
Is this list up to date with modern conventions? Are some of these readings replaced by another nowadays? Which readings are usually written in kana, and which in kanji?





TIL: 畳の縁{へり}を踏んではいけません。



Answer



This question is probably worth a research paper or at least a blog post but here’s my attempt anyway.


I checked the Kodansha’s Learner dictionary (based on The Kodansha Kanji Dictionary), which seems to give only the most relevant information.




for : On reading is エン, both in compounds and standalone


Kun is ふち. these examples are given for it:



ふち EDGE, verge, brink, border, side; frame; hem, fringe



縁取り ふちどりbordering, hemming


盆の縁 ぼんのふち edge of a tray


額縁 がくぶち (picture) frame



ゆかりand ゆり are listed as nanori only. other readings are not mentioned, so you can probably ignore them unless you read some old texts




for 端, the article is quite long so I won’t quote it all but here’s what it mentions for :



は¹ 端 edge, border


山の端 やまのは edge [brow] of mountain



は² 端 [in compounds]odd thing, fragment, piece—historically sometimes interchangeable with 葉, as in the word はがき, which is now always written 葉書


端数 はすう fraction, odd sum


半端 はんぱ fragment, odd item; incompleteness


下っ端 したっぱ underling, subordinate



and はた;



はた 端, -ばた -端 [also suffix]edge, side


池の端で いけのはたで near [by] the pond


道端 みちばた roadside, wayside




grammar - What´s the difference between による, により and によって?


I don't understand when you use it and what the difference is between each other.


For example, when you say:



火事によって多くの森林が焼けてしまった。

今回の地震による津波の心配はない。





particles - What purpose does は serve after へ in this sentence?



ところで、今週末のゴルフ大会へは行くんですか。



I feel I have a decent understanding of both of those particles, but I'm wondering how the meaning of the sentence changes with and without the は after へ.



Answer



は is the topic particle and can be used in combination with a variety of particles. When combined with the subject particle が or the object particle を, は usually replaces が or を. With all other particles, it goes after the particle. (In fact, を+は may also turn into をば, see Dono's comment.) In your example sentence, it makes ゴルフ大会へ "to the golf tournament" the topic of the sentence.


A similar sentence would be




今週末のゴルフ大会には行くんですか。



and the difference between this and your sentence is just the difference between に and へ.


inorganic chemistry - Why can't I reproduce this photolytic reaction of ferrocyanide?


I was so intrigued by the reported observation that sunlight precipitates the iron from $\ce{K4Fe(CN)6}$ (originally attributed to Matuschek, 1901) that I wanted to see it myself. I put a saturated aqueous solution, uncovered, in direct sunlight for four hours at mid-day. Absolutely nothing precipitated from the solution!


My understanding from the given reference is that in solution the $\ce{K4Fe(CN)6}$ gives $\ce{Fe(CN)6^{4−}}$ and then:


$\ce{Fe(CN)6^{4−} + 2H2O <-> Fe(CN)5 + (H2O)^{-3} + HCN + OH-}$


The photolysis causes $\ce{Fe(CN)6^{4−} ->[h\nu] Fe(CN)6^{3−} + e-}$, so then we also have


$\ce{Fe(CN)6^{3−} + 2H2O <-> Fe(CN)5 + (H2O)^{-2} + HCN + OH-}$


Is it correct to assume that if a $\ce{Fe(CN)6^{4-}}$ anion absorbs a photon of adequate energy (in this case it appears to require $\lambda < 313nm$) then with 100% probability the anion will photolyze the Fe bond?


And are there models that predict (at least order of magnitude) the absorption probability of a photon by an aqueous anion (being irradiated with a given spectral flux)?



Furthermore, what is the reaction that would precipitate iron in this case? When we bring the K back into the equations it looks like the HCN would react to produce KCN. I don't know what should happen to $\ce{Fe(CN)5}$.


In fact, after several days in open sunlight the solution is subjectively getting darker and I do see a small amount of red sediment at the bottom of the dish that appears to redissolve on swirling. Could be an iron oxide, but would also be consistent with $\ce{K3Fe(CN)6}$. In either case I don't have any indication from the source what should happen to the $\ce{(CN)5}$ groups if iron is precipitating, or what else might take one of the K atoms from the initial compound.


(Ultimately I had hoped to quantify the rate of photolysis by weighing the precipitate.)




Wednesday, 28 September 2016

halacha - May one set posts for Shabbos?



Tumblr has a feature where one can, instead of posting something at the time it it written or a set time, you can add it to a "queue". It will then post a set amount of posts per day as long as there are still left in the queue. My question is, may I use this feature over Shabbos?


There were the arguments I had why it would be allowed:



  • I'm not doing anything on Shabbos

  • It's hosted on their servers

  • There isn't a specific post set to post on Shabbos, it will just post the top one or however many you choose in the queue (I think this one is a weak defence)

  • There's not much difference whether Tumblr has to serve up my old post or serve up the new posts


The only problem I thought there might be was maris ayin, which might only apply if the blog was clearly identified as Jewish. Even then, many people know about this feature and might not assume that I am composing these posts on Shabbos. Am I correct in my analysis?


I guess I should link to this similiar question:



May one use a computer script or robot to do something specifically on Shabbos/Yom Tov?




product recommendation - Text based Ritva / Rabeinu Kresscass?


My chavrusa is looking for a text-based copies of Ritva (חידושים מכתב יד) and Rabeinu Kresscass (ריטב"א) on Gittin, so that he could put them into his computer.


Where can I find a copy of either of the above sefarim, online, as text (meaning, not pdf)?




physical chemistry - Molpro - Connection between atomic term symbols and system symmetry



Let's say I have a carbon atom with the electron configuration $1s^22s^22p^2$. We know, that using atomic term symbols we can describe the following states:


$${}^3P_0, {}^3P_1, {}^3P_2, {}^1D_2, {}^1S_0$$


Now I'd like to compute their energies with Molpro. But how should I specify those terms using just symmetry point groups?


I saw something similar using state-averaged multi computation from several different symmetries. But, I don't know, how to derive them just from the term symbol?




My attempt


I was thinking about writing the state wavefunction as the linear combination of microstates and specifying each of then separately.


I.e. let's have the state ${}^1S_0$. According to this answer it can be described like this:


$$|L = 0, M_L = 0\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt 3} \left( |m_{l1}= 1, m_{l2} = -1\rangle + |m_{l1}= -1, m_{l2} = 1\rangle - |m_{l1}= 0, m_{l2} = 0\rangle \right)$$


I presume, that I can choose any of the available point groups in Molpro for 1 atom. Let's say I'll choose $D_{2h}$ point group.



Then the orbitals' symmetry can be described like this:



  • $1s$ ($A_g$)

  • $2s$ ($A_g$)

  • $2p_x$ ($B_{3u}$)

  • $2p_y$ ($B_{2u}$)

  • $2p_z$ ($B_{1u}$)


According to this, the symmetry of the state $\left| m_{l1} = 1, m_{l2} = -1 \right>$ should be $$(A_g)^2 \otimes (A_g)^2 \otimes (B_{3u})^1 \otimes (B_{1u})^1 = B_{2g}$$


and the corresponding wavefunction specification in Molpro: wf,6,6,0.



The state $\left| m_{l1}=-1, m_{l2} = 1 \right>$ posses the same symmetry, i.e. $B_{2g}$ and so the Molpro wavefunction specification stays the same wf,6,6,0.


Finally, the state $\left| m_{l1} = 0, m_{l2} = 0 \right>$ has the symmetry


$$(A_g)^2 \otimes (A_g)^2 \otimes (B_{2u})^2 = A_g$$, i.e. the wavefunction will be specified like wf,6,1,0 and multi will be called with both of the wavefunctions together


{multi;
occ,2,1,1,0,1,0,0,0;
core,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0;
wf,6,6,0;
wf,6,1,0;
}


Is this the correct approach?



Answer



You are trying to use the wf card to pass individual configurations. This is wrong in 2 ways:



  1. The wf card does not specify which configurations to use, it specifies the symmetry of the wave function (or electronic state).

  2. You don't need to tell Molpro which configurations to use. It will figure this out on its own based on the symmetry of the wave function you are requesting. All you need is the IRREP of the $^1S_0$ state, which is totally symmetric.


{multi; occ,2,1,1,0,1,0,0,0; core,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0; wf,6,1,0; }


However, this will give you different a state than expected. Add expec2,lxx,lyy,lzz; and check $\langle L^2\rangle$ in the output. It should be 6, telling us the $^1D_1$ state is lower in energy than $^1S_0$. So we need to request more states of that symmetry (use the state card). Also, we should make sure the $^1D_1$ is described appropriately, as it might negatively affect the targeted $^1S_0$ state. So you should add all of the 5 degenerate $^1D_1$ components. I leave that as an exercise for you (see also below).


Some further note about your configuration $(a_g)^2\otimes(a_g)^2\otimes(b_{3u})^1\otimes(b_{1u})^1=B_{2g}$ (Note that the symmetry of orbitals is commonly denoted by small letters, while capital letters are used for electronic states.)




  • Only IRREPs of same symmetry mix, so this one will not contribute to $^1S_0$.

  • It is breaking the spherical symmetry of the atom. This can only happen if there is some external perturbation, e.g. a magnetic or electric field.

  • It is however, one component of a degenerate (different) state. But you need to consider all the degenerate components to preserve symmetry. This is an issue of the symmetry reduction from $O_h$ to $D_{2h}$. For example you can calculate the $^3P$ state with


{multi; occ,2,1,1,0,1,0,0,0; core,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0; wf,6,4,2; wf,6,6,2; wf,6,7,2; }


Check that you get 3 exactly degenerate $p$ orbitals, and 3 exactly degenerate electronic state energies. If you would request each state separately, by running multi 3 times with only one wf card each, you will get 3 degenerate state energies, but the $p$ orbitals won't be degenerate.


fast days - Does Judaism forbid fasting on Fridays and Saturdays? If so, where is this rule written and what is the reasoning behind it?


I was reading the deuterocanonical Book of Judith, and I came across the following:



Judith had lived as a widow in her house for three years and four months. She pitched a tent for herself on the roof of her house, put funeral clothing around her waist, and wore widow’s clothing. She fasted all the days of her widowhood except for the day before the Sabbath and the Sabbath itself, the day before the new moon, the day of the new moon, and the feasts and celebration days of the house of Israel. She was very beautiful and lovely to stare at. Her husband Manasseh left her gold and silver, male and female slaves, cattle, and fields, which she continued to oversee. And no one had a bad word to say about her, for she revered God greatly.



Being a Christian myself, I found this passage somewhat confusing because we Christians are forbidden to fast on Saturdays and Sundays (see the 66th Apostolic Canon) however we are required to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays (see the 69th Apostolic Canon)


However, I know that in Judaism, fasting is supposed to be done on Mondays and Thursdays, but is there any rule in the Jewish religion that forbids fasting on Fridays and Saturdays? If so, where is this rule written and what is the reasoning behind it?



Answer



Fasting is forbidden on Shabbat - whether on Friday night or Saturday during the day, due to the mitzvah of "Oneg Shabbat"- One is required to enjoy Shabbat. This obligation may be from the Torah, but is definitely present in Isaiah (58:13). Another proof text is Nechemia 8:9-10: when people were weeping due to their sins on Rosh Hashana, Nehemia and the Levites and Priests commanded them to eat and drink "because this day is holy to Hashem". Similarly one is forbidden to fast on all holy days including Shabbat (aside from Yom Kippur, when fasting is explicitly commanded).


Fasting is permitted by the Shulchan Aruch (288) if one is accustomed to fasting (during the day) every day and will suffer from eating, or if one has experienced a very disturbing dream that requires a fast according one's custom. Nevertheless, in the second case a person is required to do another fast to make up for fasting on Shabbat.



Fasting on Friday or Sunday is not a regular thing - voluntary fasts traditionally are not undertaken on Friday because of the holiness of Shabbat and the whiplash one would get by going from pleasure to suffering or back in one day. Taanit Esther is always pushed back to Thursday if it would fall on Sunday. Sometimes, the fast of 10 Tevet falls on Friday, and this is the only fast that is ever observed on that day by most people (Yom Kippur and Tisha b'av can't fall on Friday in our current calendar).


One thing that is quite confusing is her not fasting on the day before the New Moon. In fact, the day before the New Moon is a common time for fasting in the last few centuries (Yom Kippur Katan, little Yom Kippur). But in her days, presumably she didn't know whether the New Moon had been declared on that day, so she was probably trying to ensure that she didn't fast by mistake on the New Moon.


organic chemistry - Oxidation of cycloalkenes


Non-cyclic alkenes can be oxidized to carboxylic acids in presence of hot alkaline $\ce{KMnO4}$ and quenched with dilute $\ce{H2SO4}$ to form carboxylic acids. I suddenly got a thought. Can cycloalkenes be oxidized to form carboxylic acids? For example: can cyclohexene be oxidized to cyclohexanoic acid using the same conditions?



Answer



Both ends of the alkene would be converted into a carboxylic acid functional group.


This would be a 'ring-opening' or 'permanganate cleavage' reaction and form adipic acid (hexanedioic).



inorganic chemistry - About combining a cation and an anion


I’m trying to learn about ions. There is a slide with examples about combining cations with anions. It goes like this:



$$\text{For} \ \ \ce{Al^3+} \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ce{O^2-} \ \ \text{you get} \ \ \ce{Al2O3}$$



Wait what? So you have an atom of aluminum (in this case a cation because it loses three electrons) and an atom of oxygen (an anion since it receives two electrons). You combine them. Why do you now have TWO atoms of aluminum and THREE atoms of oxygen? Why does combining a cation and an anion suddenly spawn new atoms? And what happened to their charges?


The next example is this:




$$\text{For} \ \ \ce{Ca^2+} \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ce{Br-} \ \ \text{you get} \ \ \ce{CaBr2}$$



Alright. I see a pattern. For some reason, if the charge of an atom is positive or negative, such number will define the number of atoms for the other element. So since calcium has $2{+}$, there would be two bromine. And since bromine has $-1$ there will be one calcium. I don’t get why, though.


And a third example,



$$\text{For} \ \ \ce{Na+} \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ce{CO3^2-} \ \ \text{you get} \ \ \ce{Na2CO3}$$



Ok so this is a bit weird since there are now three elements involved.


But according to the pattern, since sodium has charge $+1$, there should be just one $\ce{CO3}$ molecule. And since $\ce{CO3^2-}$ has a charge of $-2$, there should be two of sodium.


Great, I suppose it’s an useful pattern, but my questions are:




  • Why? Why does losing/gaining an electron cause the other element to gain/lose atoms?

  • Does this pattern apply only when you combine a cation with an anion? What if it is the other way around? (An anion with a cation, or does it make no sense at all?)

  • After combining a cation with an anion, do both atoms lose their charge? Observe how the results no longer have $+$ or $-$ superscripts.




word choice - How to choose between "よん" (yon) vs "し" (shi) for "四" (4) and "しち" (shichi) vs "なな" (nana) for "七" (7)?


Two numbers in Japanese have two pronunciation alternatives.



  • 四 / 4 can be pronounced either "よん" (yon) or "し" (shi)

  • 七 / 7 can be pronounced either "しち" (shichi) or "なな" (nana)



I know that "し" (shi) can be avoided because it has the same pronunciation as "死" which means "death" but how strong is the taboo and how does it relate to factors such as formality and politeness when choosing which form to use? Is it just a matter of superstition or should speakers be more sensitive?


"しち" (shichi) vs "なな" (nana) seems to be less discussed since it doesn't involve taboo or superstition as far as I know but again what about formality and politeness etc?



Answer



よん is a 訓読み(kunyomi) reading of 4 and し is a 音読み(onyomi). なな is a kunyomi reading of 7 and しち is a onyomi.


To make a long story short kunyomi is a native Japanese pronunciation and onyomi are pronunciation that were derived from classical Chinese.


In the case of numbers shi and shichi (onyomi) is used when you are counting things. For example, ichi ni san shi go, ... It is also used in months, like 四月(shigatsu) and 七月(shichigatsu)


When you point out that you have 70 yen you say nana juu en. (In this case use kunyomi) Kunyomi is typically used in cases where you point out you have X of some item. Counting in kunyomi is very unnatural so you almost never hear people say ichi ni san yon go, ... but it is used when you count backwards.


These are just basic rules, there is one exception I can think of and that is people, sometimes you do hear 七人(shichi-nin) when you talk about people. However, as far as I know, it is very unnatural for people to use shi and shichi used when talking about large numbers in the 10's, 100's, etc so use the kunyomi (yon and nana) for that.


temperature - What is the reason for anomalous expansion of water?


What is the reason for anomalous expansion of water? Why doesn’t it simply expand on heating or contract on cooling? Why it shows anomalous behavior at 4 degrees Celsius? Why not on 4.6 or 10 (or whatever) degrees Celsius?





clothing - Permissibility of Wearing Shorts


Is there anything wrong with men wearing shorts (i.e. short pants)?


If there is, why would it be any different than wearing short sleeves?



Answer



Piskei Teshuvos in the beginning of Siman 2 cites Igros Moshe and other Acharonim who delineate the guidelines of modesty as it applies to men. The points that emerge are:



1) Modest dressing for men is not an absolute obligation, but it is very significant (וצריך ליזהר etc.)


2) The definition of immodest in this respect is if you'd be embarrassed to be seen like that in your house by a casual guest.


3) Thus, there is room for leniency to wear short sleeves etc. due to the heat. [Whether this applies to shorts would probably depend on the person and the norms of his community. There are people who would not be caught dead wearing shorts; for them it is presumably a problem.]


4) Nevertheless, a Talmid Chacham should be stringent in these matters, taking care to "walk modestly before Hashem" as much as possible. Even though most people do not qualify as a Talmid Chacham nowadays, it is appropriate for anyone to increase his level of modesty.


Note: The halachos are more stringent with regard to davening. What is allowed in general may not be appropriate during prayer.


beis hamikdash - Was there a synagogue inside the Temple?


I vaguely remember seeing in Mishnayos (probably second half of Moed, maybe Taanis - potentially in connection to where the Maamados said their Tefillos - but can't find it now) that there was a Shul within the Beis haMikdosh. I can't seem to find it on any of the floorplans though now. Can someone please confirm and provide a source?




Tuesday, 27 September 2016

grammar - How can I understand など followed by a noun phrase?


The following two sentences are from 日本語文法ハンドブック, page 116:



移動を表す表現にはいくつかありますが、「行く」と「来る」は補助動詞としての用法を持つ点で文法的に重要です。補助動詞としての「〜ていく」と「〜てくる」(この場合は普通ひらがなで書きます)には、話し手など文中の特定の人物の視点を基準にした空間的な移動の方向性を示す用法と、特定 の時点からの出来事の時間的推移や展開のとらえ方を表す用法があります。



My question is about など. From context, it seems like the phrase 話し手など is modifying the following phrase, 文中の特定の人物の視点.


I'm a little confused, though. A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar (p.268) states that "[a] particle normally follows nado", so when I read this sentence, I was expecting some kind of particle after など to indicate the role played by 話し手など. Instead, など was followed by a noun phrase! As a result, I don't know what role 話し手など plays in the sentence.


How can I understand など followed by a noun phrase?



My guesses:



  1. N1などN2 = "N2 such as N1"

  2. There is some sort of particle deleted after など



Answer



Your first guess is right. N1などN2 is "N2 such as N1" or "N2 (for example N1)"


When we say など is followed by a particle, such as N1などが, it should be probably thought of as a suffix decoration to a noun, as in "N1 (and several other things like N1)"


inorganic chemistry - Why do silver nitrate and sodium hydroxide react to produce silver(I) oxide?


I did an experiment in class combining the aqueous solutions of $\ce{AgNO3}$ and $\ce{NaOH}$. I predicted that $\ce{AgOH}$ would form but it didn't, instead a brown precipitate. I found out it was silver oxide. But why does this happen?



I researched and found out that silver is a noble metal and is thus resistant to oxidation, so why is it oxidised in this case?


Also why is $\ce{AgOH}$ not formed? I looked at the reactivity series and apparently silver can't displace $\ce{H+}$ ions out of solution, is that why?




talmud bavli - Why the different wording for the three proofs atop שבת דף מ ע״א?


The Bavli, Shabas 40 amud 1, cites a disagreement between Rav and Sh'muel. It then brings three proofs to Sh'muel's view. Each proof quotes what appears AFAICT to be a b'raysa, and each proof is introduced differently from the way the others are:



חמין שהוחמו מע״ש רב אמר למחר רוחץ בהן כל גופו אבר אבר ושמואל אמר לא התירו לרחוץ אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו מיתיבי חמין שהוחמו מע״ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו תיובתא דרב אמר לך רב לא כל גופו בבת אחת אלא אבר אבר והא פניו ידיו ורגליו קתני כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו תא שמע לא התירו לרחוץ בחמין שהוחמו מע״ש אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו ה״נ כעין פניו ידיו ורגליו תניא כוותיה דשמואל חמין שהוחמו מע״ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אבר אבר ואצ״ל חמין שהוחמו בי״ט



As you see, the first proof is introduced with "מיתיבי", the second with "תא שמע", and the third with "תניא כוותיה דשמואל". Why?




inorganic chemistry - HCl synthesis from sulfuric acid and sodium salt


I'd like know if this is right. The reaction between $\ce{NaCl}$ and $\ce{H_2SO_4}$ should yield $\ce{HCl}$ and sodium sulfate. This is a double substitution, true? No oxidation took place here. The thing is, when I tried the reaction in the lab, the resulting solution (gas bubbled into water) seemed to be sulfuric acid. Simply enough, the solution didn't react with aluminum. I presume that $\ce{SO_2}$ was formed from the oxidation the sulfur (it a little bit like it).


What am I doing wrong? Shouldn't the substitution take place instead?


Process:


$ \ce{NaCl + H_2SO_4 \rightarrow NaHSO_4 + HCl}\\ \ce{NaCl + NaHSO_4 \rightarrow Na_2SO_4 + HCl} $


Adding:



$ \ce{2\space NaCl + H_2SO_4 \rightarrow Na_2SO_4 + 2\space HCl } $


Is this right?



Answer



Ideally, that's the reaction. Realistically, there are a few speed bumps.


First, it occurs stepwise, with the acid salt sodium bisulfate as an intermediate. The first stage happens at room temp between equal proportions of salt and sulfuric acid. The second stage requires temperatures of 200*C (in turn requiring water-free concentrations of acid and dry salt) and an additional equivalent of salt that reacts with the bisulfate.


You did say you were using excess sulfuric acid; if true, you'll react all the salt but what'll be left in the flask is sodium bisulfate, not sodium sulfate. Since you're interested in the HCl gas produced and not the sulfate salt, this isn't a big deal, but I just wanted you to be clear that one mole of sulfuric acid to two moles of salt isn't going to get you the expected 2 moles of HCl unless you're heating a "water-free" combination of the reactants.


Second, if you have too much water in the reaction, the HCl won't bubble out; it'll happily sit in solution. So, dry salt and 10M or higher concentration of sulfuric acid are recommended (as in Nicolau's YouTube video, 18M is plenty strong enough to do the job, and they make and sell it up to 98% concentrations). If you're stuck with 1M, you can heat the flask to boiling, which evaporates some water and increases the acid concentration, liberating the HCl gas (sulfuric acid won't boil below 300*C, so you're fine distilling the HCl like this until you're out of water and the thermometer starts to climb).


Following these steps and bubbling the gas produced through water, what you produce should definitely be hydrochloric acid. Obviously the molar strength of it (and thus its ability to react with test materials as was also indicated by Nicolau) will depend on the relative proportions and amount of reactants, the volume of your trap water, and how much gas is actually absorbed by the water.


tefilla - Asher Meza's siddur, kosher or not?


it's me again, I am soon going to a travel after Tisha B'av and I am searching for a concise siddur so I can daven fastly. I found a really concise siddur called "ways of torah" made by a controversial Rabbi called Asher Meza. Is that siddur really kosher? The Rav claims he got inspiration from Rambam's and Saadiah gaon's siddur but is that true? If it's not kosher how can I get a nice concise siddur, I searched for Mesorat Moyshe, found it's download but the link is screwed. Pls answer thanks.




word choice - What do I actually call familiar or friendly language?


When writing on Lang-8, I often end up writing both formal and casual versions (for practice), with labels. I also wish occasionally to discuss formality, and thus need words to talk about the different levels.


With formal language, 丁寧語{ていねいご} is pretty universal. (Keigo is another story, but I think I understand its terms pretty well.) However, over time, I have tried (and been corrected many times) to use various words for casual language, and never found the right one.



  • タメ語{ご}: I was told this was often used as a gambler's slang and that it was a bit too rough to use in average casual language.

  • 友達言葉{ともだちことば}: No one has ever told me anything is wrong with this, but it is frequently corrected to various other terms below.

  • 普通体{ふつうたい}: Seen this one only once, and I've never even heard of it before that.

  • くだけた表現{ひょうげん}: Was given this one today in place of 友達言葉.

  • カジュアル: The loanword for "casual", and I've been told to use it a couple times.



What is the difference between the language represented by these various words? Are some more acceptable than others? Are some more formal?


And most importantly, how do I know which of these words to use to talk about casual, friendly language?



Answer



It depends on what you're specifically trying to say.



If you're trying to specifically contrast 「です」・「ます」 vs 「だ」・「る」, then you have a few options:




  1. Use 「敬体」 and 「常体」.


    (Note that they refer to the style (文体), not specific words like, say, 「丁寧語」 does; that is, 敬体≒丁寧語を用いた文体. If you are being anal about it.)



    However, if you use these, no one will understand you except linguists or very well-read people, which should make sense, given that it's not normally useful to contrast this specific aspect of the language and the words are not particularly intuitive.




  2. Use 「丁寧体」 and 「普通体」.


    They are an, in my opinion, slightly more intuitive pair (which also refer to 文体s); however they are just as uncommon and also currently only in used by linguist-types AFAIK.




  3. Use 「ですます体(or 調)」 and 「だ体」.


    「ですます体」 is probably the most intuitive word that refers to 敬体・丁寧体, and is pretty common. 「だ体」 is also pretty intuitive, yet I feel like I rarely see it used compared to 「ですます体」.





  4. Use 「丁寧語」 and ☹.


    This is this most common of all the technical words; that said, it is still a technical word (and its technical meaning is slightly different from 「丁寧体」 as earlier described, but no one really cares about this to be honest :-). Understood by virtually anyone.





If you want something that people would understand, I'd personally recommend 「敬語」 and 「タメ口」 -- there's no one that won't understand that pair.


In common speech, they mean "respectful speech" and "casual speech" respectfully; basically they are as general as the English translations sound. So, 「タメ口」 doesn't just mean using 「だ」 but also contractions like 「ちゃう」 , endings like 「な」, 呼び捨て, etc, etc.


(Note, there are some people that will complain that 「敬語」 refers to specifically 謙譲語 and 尊敬語. But in common speech it really does just mean "respectful speech" as a general concept.)


Regarding the other things you listed:




  • 「タメ語」 basically means the exact same thing as 「タメ口」, though I think it's slightly less common.

  • 「くだけた表現」 doesn't really refer to a style but to an expression if we're trying to nitpick. However, 「くだけた口調」 seems like something worth discussing. I feel the difference here is that it's pointing out a different aspect of style than 「タメ口」 to me -- I feel like a sentence using です・ます could be described as くだけた口調, as long as, well, it's くだけた (relaxed/informal) -- like say 「そうですねー!僕も行きたいです^^」. I'd be more reluctant to call that タメ口 but would call it くだけた口調. (This is purely my opinion.)

  • 「友達言葉」 seems pretty similar in meaning to 「タメ口」 to me -- I just think it's less common an expression.

  • 「カジュアル」 is just an adjective -- if you said something like 「カジュアルな口調」 I think it'd basically mean the same as タメ口. Has the benefit of being pretty intuitive like 「くだけた」.



I'd use 「タメ口」 almost always. Possibly use 「だ体」 or 「常体」 if I'm talking linguistics.


rambam - Are We Biblically Commanded to Study the Oral Law According to Maimonides?


Rambam writes in Hil. Talmud Torah (1:7) that one must pay to teach his son the entire written Torah.



וְחַיָּב לְלַמְּדוֹ בְּשָׂכָר עַד שֶׁיִּקְרָא תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב כֻּלָּהּ



Kessef Mishna (and others) understand that this is the only thing one must teach his son in accordance with the ruling of the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a).




כסף משנה: היה מנהג המדינה וכו'. (פ"ק דקדושין) [פ''ד דנדרים דף ל''ז] ומשמע לי דמכאן ואילך אין חייב ללמדו אפילו בחנם



Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos (assei 11) that teaching and studying is considered one commandment of "v'shinantam l'vanecha".



היא שצונו ללמוד תורה וללמדה



Does he hold that the Biblical obligation to study Torah also only includes the Written Law?




Maharam Shik (quoted in Sefer HaMafteach) notes that given that the obligations to teach a son and a student are included as a single mitzva, one ought to be exempt from teaching the Oral Law to students, but he inst happy with that conclusion and he doesnt discuss ones personal obligation





I know that he writes (e.g. Hil. Talmud Torah 1:12) that one should divide his study and include the Oral Law in his study. I am also aware of what he writes in (1:10). The question is just whether study of the Oral Law fulfills the Biblical obligation. Bonus points for the views of other Rishonim (such as the Ramah quoted in the Tur)




halacha - Is a cloth covering required for Tachanun?


Do you have to have an actual cloth covering to rest your head on during tachanun? Or can you rest it directly on your bare arm (if you are wearing short sleeves)?


Furthermore, if you do indeed need a cloth covering, is it better to just not lay your head down at all if you are wearing short sleeves?





What is the basis for eating in someone's house without a kashrut certificate?


No one asks for a kashrut certificate to eat in someone's house; they just make a rough judgement based on the host's reputation (the way they dress or behave, the circles they move in, etc.). That level of laxity would not be allowed in any other kashrut-related decision.


I had the funny idea for Hasgacha Pratit, a kashrut certification organization for private homes -- Don't even think of taking that seriously! But if you do, cut me in :-)


It is not just a matter of trust. You might ask your host "Do you keep kosher?" And the host might honestly say "Yes." Some Jews sincerely think that not having pork and shrimp in the house is enough for one to "keep kosher". Some follow ingredient labels and don't require hashgochas. Some Jews rely on hashgochas that other Jews reject.


You might have the chutzpah to pry a little, but lemayseh, few guests quiz their host on the details -- certainly not on the level they would demand for any other source of food. Usually, if the guest "acts frum", that's enough.


So: Why do people treat kashrut in other people's homes so leniently?




Edit: Apparently it is more common than I believed for guests to query their hosts "What hashgochas do you accept? You do separate milk and meat dishes, right?", "Do you use meat-based gelatin?", etc.



I still think that such questions are not as widespread as one might think, and that general guests rely on vague impressions given by the clothing the host wears or the shul they belong to, but that goes a long way towards an answer.



Answer



The reason we require mashgiach and hechshers on products that you buy in the store or from a resteraunt, is because the person you are purchasing the food from gains a financial benefit from you purchasing. (obviously) There is therefore a temptation to lie or to cut corners in order to make a greater profit or to attract more customers.


However, the opposite is true when going over to a person's private home. People do not gain financially when you eat at their homes. In fact, they lose financially. So we assume there is no reason not to trust them.


grammar - Overall syntax of this sentence



この部屋はシャワーだけお風呂がないんですが。
=> "This apartment only has a shower but no bathtub"



This would be what I think this sentence says contentwise. I also think it could be a viable translation, but the way its expressed confuses me.


First, I'm not sure if I understood the overall syntax of the sentence correctly. It seems to me that 部屋 is the topic here, but I dont think that it's the subject of the following clause.



"Concerning the apartment, with the shower only there is no bath."




Second, I'm struggling with the connection of



シャワーだけ



and



お風呂がない



Since I assume that the sentence says that there is a shower, but no bathtub, attaching both nominal phrases (shower and bathtub) to the predicative ない gives me a headache.


And here, the third unclarity comes into play.



What is this で? Is it the particle I was assuming? If so, are there any phrases omitted as well? I just can't imagine how shower and bathtub shall be connected to ない, so there must be an omitted verbal phrase expressing the existence of shower. Its either that or maybe you can explain how japanese can express the existence of something with a verb that's actually stating the non-existence of something ^^



Answer



この部屋はシャワーだけだ makes sense at least in conversation. It means something like "This room is shower-only" by itself. この部屋はシャワーだ (literally "This room is a shower") sounds weird in isolation, but it still makes sense in the context where you're talking about which room is equipped with what. It's in the same vein English speakers occasionally say "I'm coffee" at a restaurant.


So it's simply the two sentences said together: この部屋はシャワーだけだ and この部屋はお風呂がない. This で is the te-form of the copula だ.


EDIT: Sentences like この部屋はシャワーだ and 私はコーヒーだ are sometimes called うなぎ文 ("eel sentence"). They may look illogical at first, but are not uncommon in topic-prominent languages like Japanese.


shabbat - Asking Questions on StackOverflow on Erev Shabbos


Is there a problem with asking a programming question on StackOverflow (or any other StackExchange site) on Erev Shabbos, so that they will eventually be answered by the time Motzei Shabbos arrives? Specifically because there is a decent probability that a non-shomer-shabbos Jew will answer it.


And: Am I allowed to benefit from such an answer?



Answer



This is not an halachic answer, but rather a practical one.


While it is true that there are a lot of Jewish programmers, and specifically Jewish SO users, it is still a relatively low percentage of total SO users.

Moreover, the odds of a specific user answering your question are incredibly small (well, except maybe for this one, but he's not Jewish AFAIK...) - even if you aggregate all the Jewish SO users, you still have a pretty small percentage overall (definitely less than 1 in 60, though I don't know if that would have halachic implications in this case...).


Even for Jewish SO users, you'd additionally have to:



  • factor out the religious Jews, who wouldnt be answering on Shabbat (or chag) anyway;

  • factor the different timezones - so just because it's Shabbat for you right now soon after you ask the question, there is a wide range in Shabbatness (? Shabbatability? ...) of other non-religious, jewish SO users;

  • Factor the fact that SO is a primarily professional site, i.e. most users use it most often during the work week (okay, Friday afternoon in the winter may have overlap...). In fact, the moderators have mentioned that there is a substantial dip in usage over the weekend.

  • Even if you consider only the [non-religious, jewish, SO users who access SO on Shabbat] - its likely they wont read your question (unless it's in one of the most popular tags, or *really well written - but what are the odds of that?? ;) )... and even if they do read it, it's an even lower percentage that would answer it right away.

  • For that matter, even if you ask your question on Tuesday, there is a practically even chance of it being read and answered by a [non-religious Jewish SO user during Shabbat in his own timezone].

  • Also factor the fact that even if you didn't ask the question, that [non-religious Jewish SO user during Shabbat in his own timezone] would likely be answering other questions instead. So you are not causing him to violate the sanctity of Shabbat, that is of his own choosing. (And btw - if SO were to shutdown on Shabbat, he'd be doing something else instead - FB, SMS, driving to pubs or the beach, whatever...).



As for benefit - and I'm not sure this is the exact halachic position - but I was taught that one can benefit from some forms of chilul shabbat, provided that you are not benefiting from the fact that it was chilul.
I.e. if it could have equally been done after shabbat, but happened to have been done on shabbat, then it's a just a question of leaving enough time after the end of Shabbat, such that it could have been done after Shabbat (in order that you dont profit the "preparation" time).


In short, if you happen to know with any level of certainty that a [non-religious Jewish SO user during Shabbat in his own timezone] answered your question - wait till long enough after Shabbat. If you were to know that he would be answering your question and only your question, you'd probably be better off not asking at that point - but then again, there is no reasonable way to know that (unless you really try...)


tefilla - Can you pray or study torah in a non-Jewish cemetery?



There is a large non-Jewish cemetery near where I live. It has beautiful grounds and is open to the public for visiting. Is it OK to pray or study Torah there?



Answer



It has been said that a Jew may visit the graves of righteous gentiles to arouse one to do Teshuvah when the graves of Jews are not available in one’s vicinity, but if the cemetery you wish to enter contains statues of idols (such as Christian crosses, etc.) then you should not enter such a cemetery let alone pray or learn there.


M”B 579:14; Kaf Hachaim 579:20


words - What does the title "Hatomim" mean?


I have stumbled upon the title "Hatomim" before people's names in Chabad-oriented documents on the Internet.




  • What is the meaning and significance of this title, in this context?




  • Practically speaking, to whom is it applied?





  • Does it refer to a particular achievement or religious quality, or is it just a nice thing to call someone?





Answer




The Rebbe Rashab founded Yeshivas Tomchei Tmimim, whose purpose was that in it should be learned “G-d’s Torah, the exoteric and the esoteric, as a whole.” That is why the Yeshivah was called “Tomchei Tmimim,” and its students called Tmimim (Tmimim — plural of “tomim” meaning whole) — for there the synthesis of the exoteric and esoteric was manifest. Although the exoteric and esoteric were learned before the founding of Tomchei Tmimim, they were not learned together in the same building and day; nor was the esoteric given the same importance as the study of the exoteric. Thus the contribution of the Rebbe Rashab was the synthesis of the exoteric (earth) with the esoteric (heaven).


Today, the birthday of the Rebbe Rashab gives strength for all students (past and present) of Tomchei Tmimim to increase in all things associated with the spirit of Tomchei Tmimim, and to act accordingly. Study in Tomchei Tmimim is not something in the past; even one moment’s study in it is an eternal matter, and such a person is always a Tomim. The only choice in this matter is whether to reveal this eternal bond by acting in the spirit of Tomchei Tmimim, or the reverse G-d forbid.



http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/sichos-in-english/15/25.htm Emphasis mine.



Practically, the title is used on anyone who learned in a Lubavitch affiliated yeshiva. As a title, it's used mainly by Aliyas (as in Yaamod, HaRov [or HaBachur] HaTomim Ploni ben bloni Maftir).


It's also used as an adjective (like "He's a Tomim"). However, (in my experience) it's mostly used to describe where he learned ("He was a Tomim from Otvotzk/Lubavitch)


words - Confirmation regarding Japanese colors i-adjective


I want to ask confirmation regarding Japanese colors. I understand that there are NOUN, and I-adj version of some colors. Such as 赤&赤い, 青&青い, etc.


But this part below is something I cannot confirm. Some article say that it is okay to say both "車は赤です" and "車は赤いです", but some say that you can only say "車は赤です". Which one is correct?


Also about basic colors. It seems that green (緑) and purple (紫) don't have i-adj version. But how about yellow (黄色), brown (茶色), orange (橙色) & grey (灰色)? Do they have i-adj version? I'm pretty sure I've heard 黄色い and 茶色い, but wasn't sure about 橙色い and 灰色い...


Update for specific reference I read about:
This sentence is copied from Link:



"It might be possible to use 赤いです [akai desu] in simple sentences, but I know that 赤です [aka desu] is always safe."



And this one is copied from Link:




"ボールはしろです. The ball is white. When using primary colors to modify a noun, use the i-adjective form; otherwise, use the no-adjective form."




Answer



Could you be more specific about the article you talk about? In English obviously "red" could be both a noun or an adjective..wait, maybe is not so obvious.


Anyway, according to this source, there are six colors in Japanese that are い-adjectives:


「赤い」, 「青い」,「白い」,「黒い」,「黄色い」, 「茶色い」.


On the other hand, colors such as 「緑」,「金」,「ピンク」,「オレンジ」and so on, are actually names belonging to the category of so-called の-adjectives.


EDIT: a related question on の-adjectives is here.


Moreover, always according to the first source, you can actually remove the い from the former six adjectives. This would turn them into names/の-adjectives as well.



To recap, for example 赤い and 赤(の) are both adjectives, while there is no such thing as 緑+い for example.


Edit: I am not sure why in the article he says that 車は赤です is safe, as the author does not provide any specific grammatical explanation. It might be related to い-adjective + です (there is a lot on this argument at this link). I do not think it has anything to do with being or not an adjective as both 赤 and 赤い are (since a の-adjective is nothing but a name that usually in English is translated with an adjective).


Monday, 26 September 2016

organic chemistry - Longest chain IUPAC rule


I wonder, what are the exact IUPAC organic chemistry nomenclature rules that give the preference to the chain length over number of unsaturated bonds, i.e. that justify, or prefer following names:


structure 1


4-ethenyl-4-ethynylheptane over
3,3-dipropylpent-1-en-4-yne


structure 2


3,5-dimethylideneheptane over
2,4-diethylpenta-1,4-diene


?




Answer



In Chapter P-4 "Rules for Name Construction", section P-44 "Seniority Order for Parent Structures", of Nomenclature of Organic Chemistry: IUPAC Recommendations and Preferred Names 2013, it is stated that (p 490):



P-44.3.2 The principal chain has the greater number of skeletal atoms [criterion (b) in P-44.3].



The Blue Book lists several helpful examples, one of which is that the principal chain "octane" is senior to "hept-1-ene". Therefore, the following compound


Compound to be named


is named 3-methylideneoctane instead of 2-ethylhept-1-ene.


The authors mention that this preference is in contrast to previous recommendations (e.g. 1979):




In acyclic parent structures the order of seniority between unsaturation and length of chain given in earlier recommendations is reversed. Thus, the first criterion to be considered in choosing a preferred parent acyclic chain is the length of the chain; unsaturation is now the second.



computer vision - Detecting Trail in Forest Images


Is anyone aware of any research/papers/software for identifying a trail (as a line or point-to-point curve) in an image of a forest scene (from the perspective of the camera standing somewhere along the trail)?


I'm trying to find an algorithm that could take an image like:


alt text


and produce a mask, identifying a likely "trail", such as:


alt text


As you can see, the original image is a bit blurry, which is purposeful. The image source can't guarantee perfect focus, so I need to be able to handle a reasonable amount of noise and blurriness.


My first thought was to apply a Gaussian blur, and segment the image into blocks, comparing adjacent blocks looking for sharp color differences (indicating a trail "edge"). However, I quickly realized that shadows and other changes in lighting easily throws that off.


I was thinking about extracting SURF features, but I've only had success with SURF/SIFT when the image is perfectly clear and with consistent lighting.



I've also tried scaling the images and masks down to much smaller sizes (e.g. 100x75), converting them into 1xN vectors, and using them to train a FANN-based neural network (where the image is the input and the mask is the desired output). Even at such a small size, with 1 hidden layer with 75% the size of the input vector, it took 6 hours to train, and still couldn't predict any masks in the testing set.


Can anyone suggest any other methods or papers on the subject?




halacha - Eating before Davening with a Minyan, or Davening at home and not eating till later?


You wake up in the morning and are famished. In order to have strength to go to Shul you need to eat prior to Davening. However, if you were to Daven without a Minyan at home you would not have to eat prior to Davening. What should you do? Eat before Davening with a Minyan? Or Daven without a Minyan and avoid eating before Davening? (sources please)



Answer



Your question is addressed in a Biur Halacha O.C 89 "v'chen". A person who is eating for strength (because he experiences weakness) may eat before davening even if he could just as easily waited until after davening- since his intent is for his health.


However, he continues quoting, the best practice is to not eat before davening, even if this will disallow him from davening with a minyan because of his weakness.


I would qualify this with the assumption that davening first and eating later would not have an effect on his attention. If it does, perhaps we would defer to the Aruch haShulchan 89:25 quoting the Rambam that you must eat, and the Bais Yosef saying that it is optional (presumably because we don't have great attention anyway).


halacha - Teaching Mussar to a non-Jew?


Are we allowed to teach Sifrei Mussar (for instance Orchos Tzadikim, Mesilas Yesharim, Chovos Halevavos) to non-Jews?



What about the Gra on Mishlei?



Answer



R' Yechiel Perr, RY in Far Rockaway was asked by Dr Alan Morinis about this. Morinis's Mussar Institute teaches a lot of people whose spouse is Jewish, or who self-identify as Jewish but are far from being Jews halachically. I was present when the question was asked.


Rabbi Perr said that Mussar -- development of one's middos -- is also obligatory for non-Jews no less than Jews. So, like teaching them the laws incumbent on non-Jews as terms of the covenant with Noah, teaching Mussar is a mitzvah, not merely permissable.


(Even outside the institute's context of needing to teach to some non-Jews in order to reach a primarily Jewish population.)


Any errors are in my memory, and R' Perr (as a scion of Novhardok, this is his turf) should be consulted if one is asking for a practical halachic ruling.


parshanut torah comment - Why Moses didn't care for his sons after leaving Egypt?


This bothers me a lot, and I would like to understand Moses' approach to his family as the Torah describes it:




  1. Moses marries Tzipora (which seemingly converts) in Midyan and has two sons (that are seemingly Jews)




  2. Moses leaves Midyan with his wife and kids on his way to Egypt





  3. Something happens in between. The Mechilta says he meets Aharon and Aharon advises Moses not to bring them to Egypt (this is very weird, as we know that the Tribe of Levy weren't ever enslaved or hurt)




  4. A year of the ten Makkos passes, no Jews are hurt, and Aharon's fears fade away, and the Jews finally leave Egypt. Moses doesn't remember his wife and kids.




  5. The whole nation crosses the Red sea and sees the miracles. The Egyptians are fully defeated. No mention of changes in Moses' position.





  6. (There are two opinions here on when Yitro came to Moses - either before the Matan Torah or after) So either Moses is ready to receive the Torah without his family or actually receives the Torah without remembering them. (looks very strange to me)




  7. Yitro comes and brings Tzipora and Moses sons - no mention of the reunion, happy meeting etc. No mention of Moses relating to his sons at all.




The questions:



  • Was this behavior sanctioned by G-d?


  • What was Moses' intention toward his sons in the whole Parsha of Yetziat Mitzrayim?

  • Was Moses exempt from all his obligations toward his sons (Chinuch, Torah learning etc)?




eretz yisrael - Does kashrut depend on peah, leket, etc?


I understand that if a crop in the Land of Israel does not have the trumot and maaserot properly separated, then the produce is tevel and cannot be eaten (until it is done).


But that made me think of the mitzvot of peah, leket, shikchah, etc., since they also involve designating a portion of a crop for specific purposes. If those mitzvot are not observed, then couldn't we say that those designated portions are intermingled with the rest of the produce, making the whole thing off limits?



I suspect the answer is "no," but I am curious about why.



Answer



Aaron, your guess is correct: the produce remains kosher whether it was shared with the poor or not.


The only portions of the produce that have restrictions on its edibility are:



  • terumah, which must be eaten by a Kohen while ritually pure

  • terumat maaser, which is the terumah given by the Levi.

  • Ma'aser sheni, should be kept ritually pure (tahor) and eaten in Jerusalem.


Hence, the way Israeli produce is tithed today is as follows:




Okay here's 100 lbs of wheat. I take this one kernel and declare it terumah, I can't eat it as I'm not a kohen, but a kohen can't eat it as we're likely all tamei, so I'll just let it decompose. Now I designate the northern 10 lb of this wheat as maaser, which should be given to the Levi. Okay the Levi should give a tenth of that to the kohen, so the north-eastern 1 lb of this wheat (remove it) is hereby terumat maaser, again I just have to let it decompose. The other 9 lbs on the north are ordinary maaser, they're kosher for me to eat; if anyone can prove they're a Levi, come and get them. What, nobody here? Oh well. I'll just eat them myself then.


The southern 10 lbs (well slightly less) are ma'aser sheni, I should take that wheat up to Jerusalem and eat it there, but it's tamei already, so I hereby transfer its sanctity onto this handy coin (which, as I can't use to buy non-tamei food in Jerusalem, I have to throw out). Okay, now I can eat the southern 10 lbs.



The shares given to the Levi and poor are all about monetary ownership, not ritual status of the food. If gifts to the poor affected ritual status, we'd have to get into a complicated question of who's called sufficiently "poor" as to have a ritual effect. Yes the Talmud defines poverty with regards to who's entitled/allowed to receive these forms of charity, but how much money you have in the bank, to the best of my knowledge, does not affect ritual status in halacha. It's not something directly tied to who we are, no matter what advertisers would like you think otherwise.


(Yes okay nitpickers, what if someone makes an oath or marries a woman "on the condition that I'm rich" ... yes halachic actions can be conditioned on anything.)


minhag - Yom tov kiddush tune


There's a popular tune used for kidush on the nights of the shalosh r'galim. (It's available on YouTube (but ignore the "shehechiyanu" part of that recording).)




  1. What's its origin?

  2. Does it have the minhag-status or immutability ascribed to some of the tunes that we use for prayers?



Answer



Cantor Goffin refers to it as "Traditional / Corollary MiSinai", and therefore in his opinion, immutable. Not as iron-clad as something recorded by Maharil, "father of Ashkenazic custom", though.


So I think that means we have no record of it from the 1400s, making it likely newer than that. Afraid I don't know when, though.


Note that Cantor Goffin's halachic source is a statement of Ramah to respect communal practice, including traditional tunes. If I understand correctly, he argues that Ashkenazic Jews are bound by the traditional communal practices of their Eastern European ancestors. (However ... a responsum of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein allowing an Eastern European immigrant to change his garb from that of a traditional Eastern European Jew to that of an American Orthodox Jew -- i.e. a two-piece suit or the like -- argues that "communal practices" only retain their halachic force during geographic transplantation if a specific community relocates en masse at a single point in time, which is not the case other than the Frankfurt community of Washington Heights, plus perhaps a few Hassidic communities. Though on the other hand ... it could also be argued that some liturgical tunes have now been accepted as the communal practice of American Ashkenazim.)


So if the Maharil-endorsed tunes are "extra-strength tradition", I'd call this one "regular-strength tradition." Still quite potent, though.


organic chemistry - Why is the thione tautomeric form of 2-Mercaptopyridine favoured?


During some organic chemistry studies (through an old online course material) I ran into a doubt about the equilibrium in tautomeric forms of some heteroaromatics.


First, the context:


On the course webcast, it was said that on the molecule 2-pyridone we have a tautomerism equilibrium like in the image below, where the pyridone form is favored instead of the 2-hydroxipyridine form.


Pyridone Tautomerism Equilibrium


Pyridone Tautomerism Equilibrium


Each tautomer have 2 major contributors for resonance, listed on the image below (for the 2-hydroxipyridine and 2-pyridone respectively):



Resonance Contributors


On the 2-hydroxipyridine resonance forms (left) we have on the left side of the equilibrium an aromatic uncharged molecule and on the right side an aromatic charged molecule. However the most electronegative heteroatom (oxygen) is positively charged and the nitrogen negatively charged. This makes this resonance form a weaker contributor.


On the 2-pyridone resonance forms (right) we have on the left side of the equilibrium a non aromatic (8pi $\ce{e-}$) uncharged molecule and on the right side an aromatic (6pi $\ce{e-}$) charged molecule, where the oxygen is the negatively charged heteroatom, matching the electronegativity character of each heteroatom. This favors the 2-pyridone tautomer.


Another factor mentioned was the dimerization of the molecule, which was geometrically favored in the 2-pyridone form, as seem below:


Dimerization


So far so good, the doubt comes when the tautomers of 2-mercaptopyridine are discussed.


Tautomers equilibrium of 2-mercaptopyridine:


Tautomers of 2-mercaptopyridine


It's known that the thione form (right) is favored. It's not explained as detailed as in the pyridone case why, so I decided to analyse it.


I've drawn the 2 major contributors of resonance on each tautomer. I'll show and discuss them.



First the thiol tautomer form resonance contributors:


Thiol tautomer


On the left we have an uncharged aromatic (6pi $\ce{e-}$) molecule. On the right we have a charged and non aromatic (8pi $\ce{e-}$) molecule, with a positive charge on sulfur and a negative charge on nitrogen.


Now the thione tautomer form resonance contributors:


thione tautomer


On the left we have a non aromatic (8pi $\ce{e-}$) uncharged molecule. On the right we have a charged aromatic (6pi $\ce{e-}$) molecule, with a negative charge on sulfur and a positive charge on nitrogen.


I could make the following assumptions after drawing those:


1) Considering only aromaticity, none of the tautomeric forms are favored, since both forms have one aromatic contributor and one non aromatic contributor.


2) Considering the heteroatoms electronegativity, knowing nitrogen is more electronegative than sulfur, the thiol tautomer would have the right charges on its charged resonance contributor, being more stable than the thione tautomer.


3) Considering the geometry for dimerization, the thione tautomer seems to have a better geometry for the hydrogen bonds and would be favored over the thiol tautomer.



Only assumption (3) is in favor of the thione formation, however it's the favored tautomer. Why so?


In the course webcast, the teacher makes it sound like having the negative charge on the sulfur and the positive charge on nitrogen would be the right charge distribution. Wouldn't the opposite be true considering that sulfur is less electronegative than nitrogen?


Here's a youtube link to the webcast mentioned: Hydroxypyridine-Pyridone Tautomerism


Thank you in advance!




EDIT NOTE:


When I originally wrote the question, I made a mistake while counting the thiol tautomer pi electrons on the resonance form of the right. I originally counted 6pi $\ce{e-}$, but it actually has 8pi $\ce{e-}$ (4 from the carbon-carbon pi-bonds, 2 from the nitrogen lone pair and 1 from the sulfur-carbon double bond), which means the right resonance form isn't aromatic. Thus aromaticity doesn't favor neither of the tautomers. The question still makes sense though, so I'm fixing the mistake and keeping it.



Answer



Assumption (1) doesn't hold too much precedence in this case, just like in the case of 2-pyridone, so it is a minor thing to consider. In the case of the assumption (2), electronegativity is only a part of it. Sulfur atom can stabilize the negative charge better than oxygen due to it's size. For the same reason, $\ce{CH3SH}$ is a stronger acid than $\ce{CH3OH}$: $\ce{CH3S-}$ is a more stable conjugate base than $\ce{CH3O-}$. So, although sulfur has a lower electronegativity than oxygen, it is still preferred to have a negative charge on it. Thus, altogether, the thione form is more stable than the thiol.


BTW, thank you for a very detailed question and thorough explanation of your reasoning!



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...