I have seen in Kleppner &amp; Kolenkow that for a rigid body moving with a fixed point on it, the angular momentum about an axis passing through that fixed point is given by the product of inertia tensor and angular velocity. Does that apply for an axis not passing through the rigid body too?
I have been told [Warning: I leave this because it's what I asked and allows to understand the dialogues in the comments, but Azad, whom I thank, has pointed that the formula does not hold in general in the form it is expressed] that the angular momentum of and rigid body with respect to any point $P$ can always be expressed as $$\mathbf{L}_{P}=\mathbf{r}_{cm}\times M\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\big(\sum_im_iR_i^2\big)\boldsymbol{\omega}$$ where $\mathbf{r}_{cm}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to $P$, $M$ the mass of the body, $R_i$ the distance of the $i$-th point, having mass $m_i$, composing the body, and $\sum_im_iR_i^2=I$ its moment of inertia with respect to the instantaneous axis of the rotation around the centre of mass of angular velocity $\boldsymbol{\omega}$.  I know that the velocity $\mathbf{v}_i$ of each point $P_i$, having mass $m_i$, of a rigid body of mass $M$ can be see as the sum of a translation velocity of one of its points $C$ plus a rotation velocity around that point: $\mathbf{v}_i=\mathbf{v}_{C}+\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}$. If we chose $C$ as the centre of mass I see that $$\mathbf{L}_{cm}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{i}=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_{cm}+\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})$$$$=\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i}) $$because, if I am not wrong, $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i\mathbf{v}_C=(\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i})\times\mathbf{v}_C=\mathbf{0}$ since $\sum_i m_i\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ is the position of the centre of mass with respect to itself, which is $\mathbf{0}$.  How can it be proved that $\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=(\sum_im_iR_i^2)\boldsymbol{\omega}$? I have searched a lot on the Internet and on books, but I find nothing. To give some background of mine, I have studied nothing of analytical mechanics. I find the formula very, very interesting both in itself and because, if the moment of inertia does not depend upon time, $\forall t\quad I(t)= I(t_0)$, the above expression can be differentiated to get the formula of the resultant torque with respect to the centre of mass $\sum\boldsymbol{\tau}_{cm}=\frac{d\mathbf{L}_{cm}}{dt}=I\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{cm}$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ is the angular acceleration around the centre of mass. I heartily thank you for any answer!    Some unfruitful trials: by using the "BAC CAB identity" as suggested by Azad, whom I heartily thank, $\mathbf{a}\times(\mathbf{b}\times\mathbf{c})=(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{c})\mathbf{b}-(\mathbf{a}\cdot\mathbf{b})\mathbf{c}$, I can see that$$\sum_i \overrightarrow{CP_i}\times m_i(\boldsymbol{\omega}\times\overrightarrow{CP_i})=\sum_im_i\|\overrightarrow{CP_i}\|^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\overrightarrow{CP_i}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$which, by decomposing every $\overrightarrow{CP_i}$ into an axial component $\mathbf{A}_i$ and a radial component $\mathbf{R}_i$, whose norms respectively are $A_i$ and $R_i$, with $R_i$ as the distance from $i$ to the axis of rotation, becomes $$\sum_im_iR_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}+\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}$$but I cannot prove that $\sum_i m_i A_i^2\boldsymbol{\omega}-m_i(\mathbf{A}_i\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega})\overrightarrow{CP_i}=\mathbf{0}$.
I'm concerned about an app on my child's phone. I saw an app icon in the notification area that looked strange (Andy Android head, slightly tilted as its icon).  How can I find out what app it is from just having seen that icon in the notification bar? gedit "cannot open display" , on remote computer , using ssh - Ubuntu 12.04 Possible Duplicate:          I am getting the following error message when using ssh to log into a remote machine:      gedit: cannot open display   I am using ssh in - Ubuntu 12.04. Is the closure of path-connected set path connected? I want to change my field from molecular biophysics to theoretical ecology. While they are basically required some same basic background (physics, math, programming), the rest is quite irrelevant. In my current draft of this part, about a half is about this the problem and the result of the work, another half is for my contribution and what I've learnt. Having said that, should I focus less on describing the work and leave space for the thing that will be useful for the next research?  Below is copy from .     What have you already done? What problems have you solved, or at least worked on? What independent projects have you been part of? What were your key contributions? What did you learn? What did you teach the world? How do your results compare to what was already known? What original ideas are you most proud of? Be specific, technical, credible, and confident (but not arrogant). Refer the reader to your web page for more details. Have a web page with more details: preprints, project reports, source code, videos, etc. Do the Ents go to the Undying Lands? I'm pulling items out of the DOM with jQuery and want to set a property on an object using the id of the DOM element.   Example  const obj = {}  jQuery(itemsFromDom).each(function() {   const element = jQuery(this)   const name = element.attr('id')   const value = element.attr('value')    // Here is the problem   obj.name = value })   If itemsFromDom includes an element with an id of "myId", I want obj to have a property named "myId". The above gives me name.  How do I name a property of an object using a variable using JavaScript? The ^^ notation in various engines Basically, how does the ^^^... notation work in LuaTeX and XeTeX, exactly?  In 8-bit TeX engines (recent TeX, eTeX, pdfTeX, at least), two consecutive identical catcode 7 characters (typically ^), followed by two lowercase hexadecimal digits, are converted before the tokenization step to the corresponding byte.  Namely, ^^6f is exactly equivalent to o: for instance, \sh^^6fw ^^6f will cause TeX to show the letter o.  There is also the notation with two ^ (identical catcode 7 characters), followed by any ascii character (but not two lowercase hexadecimal digits), which is replaced by the character obtained by either subtracting or adding 64 to the character code, remaining among ASCII characters (range 0 to 128).  Unicode-aware engines (I'm thinking of LuaTeX and XeTeX, there are perhaps other less known ones around) also provide ^^^^xxxx and ^^^^^xxxxx for characters whose hexadecimal representation has 4, or 5 digits.  But this does not seem to be done in the same way across engines.  For instance, both LuaTeX and XeTeX appear to accept the notation with 4, 5, or 6 carets followed by the same number of hexadecimal digits, but XeTeX also accepts it for 3, while LuaTeX doesn't. Compiling the following with pdfTeX, LuaTeX, and XeTeX gives different results.  \catcode0=12 \newlinechar=10 \def\loopshow#1{\message{\meaning #1^^J}\loopshow} \loopshow \/   ^^56   ^^^056   ^^^^0056   ^^^^^00056   ^^^^^^000056   ^^^^^^^0000056 {\end\iffalse} \fi} \bye   One weird fact about XeTeX (a bug?) is that  \show ^^^^^^010101   shows the character displaywidth.  My goal (there may be a better way to do this) is to provide a way to test whether passing a given list of tokens through \scantokens is safe.  For that, my plan is to go through the \detokenized token list one character at a time, applying TeX's rule for tokenizing (but no need to fully tokenize), and detecting begin-group and end-group tokens, as well as invalid characters. Let $f:S^{2n} \rightarrow S^{2n}$ be a continuous map. Show that          there exists $x \in S^{2n}$, such that $f(x) =x$ or $f(x) = -x$;   any continous map $g: \mathbb R P^{2n} \rightarrow \mathbb RP^{2n}$ has a fixed point;      I think 1 implies 2. So, how can I find an $x$ in 1?  Thanks for the help. User cards are no longer showing reputation or badges across the network "I'm lovin' it" How normal-sounding is the slogan "I'm lovin' it" to native ears?  I know it sounded quite odd to me when I first heard it — and it still sometimes does —, but I can't even tell why. Sure, love is supposedly a stative verb, but it's being used in progressive aspect all the time without sounding weird at all (lots of songs come to mind, e.g. ). It's only this particular slogan that somehow doesn't quite work for me. I would expect that to be totally on purpose — it's advertising, after all —, but Wikipedia  any objections from native speakers (as it does with "" and ""). So I'm asking the native speakers of this community: does "I'm lovin' it" sound completely natural to you? Just a bit off? Completely weird? Why? What do the X and Y axis stand for in the Fourier transform domain? I have been a witness to many a discussion about numbers to the power of zero, but I have never really been sold on any claims or explanations.  This is a three part question, the parts are as follows...    1) Why does $n^{0}=1$ when $n\neq 0$?  How does that get defined?  2) What is $0^{0}$?  Is it undefined?  If so, why does it not equal 1?  3) What is the equation that defines exponents?  I can easily write a small program to do it (see below), but what about in equation format?    I just want a little discussion about numbers to the power of zero, for some clarification.    Code for Exponents: (pseudo-code/Ruby)  def int find_exp (int x, int n){     int total = 1;     n.times{total*=x}     return total; } How to install mods for the new Minecraft launcher I looked around but did not find that anyone has asked this before, but what are the fonts that are standard/recommended while writing academic reports/papers? meaning of the word "in" in context It is from . It is at around 8 minute and 39 second. Here it goes:     Culinary cultural fusion is all the rage; more novels translated from languages then ever before, although few are read, and in the surest sign of cultural globalization, football, the world's game, finally has reached America.   I guess the sentence would make sense if the preposition in were dropped out. Could you please tell me what did the host use it for? Exporting QGIS project to Mapnik XML? Is it possible to export a QGIS project to Mapnik xml?   I'm using QGIS 2.4 and Quantumnik does not seem to work with that version. What is $n!$ when $n=0$? Cohen's d for 2x2 interaction I have a significant 2x2 interaction in a between-subjects design.  I would normally report omega-squared as my effect-size measure, but I've been asked to provide Cohen's d instead?  Can Cohen's d be computed for an interaction?  If so, how? Let $A$ be the set of all functions $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ that satisfy the following two properties. Let $A$ be the set of all functions $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ that satisfy the following two properties:  (1) $f$ has derivative of all orders, and  (2) for all $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$, $f(x+y)-f(y-x)=2xf'(y)$.  Which of the following sentences is true?  (a) Any $f\in A$ is a polynomial of degree less than or equal to 1  (b) Any $f \in A$ is a polynomial of degree less than or equal to 2  (c) $\exists f \in A$ which is not polynomial  (d) $\exists f \in A$ which is a polynomial of degree 4  It is a problem from TIFR GS-2018. I have found polynomials upto degree 2 hold this properties but have to exclude the possibility of (c) and (d). I also found out if $f'(x)$ has at most one real root and clearly graph of $f$ is symetric about that root. How can I proceed further? Why does a bigger sensor lead to a shallower depth of field? It has been mentioned at    that a larger sensor results in images with a shallower depth of field. Example image:          I understand how sensor size would relate to, for example, field of view, but the relationship with depth of field does not seem straightforward.  It actually seems contradictory - I have more wells on my sensor, and I am able to focus on less number of points.  What is the reason for this effect?