Sentences with phrase «equation does»

If we have decided that the risk / convenience equation does not require us to ban reading client documents outside of the office entirely, then there is no reasonable suggestion that we need to impose additional requirements when reading off of a screen.

Now, JJ goes on to claim that «I think you'll find the math doesn't work» which I interpret to mean the equation does not support the case for global warming alarmism.

But the M&M equation does not have autocorrelated errors.

The Bode equation does not describe the planetary temperature / sea level responses, nor could it generate them, it is a far too simplistic representation of climate.

I should have said: the equation does not imply or support the claim that back radiation transfers energy to the hotter object.

The S - B equation does not predict an energy flux.

I would agree that Bartlett's equation does exclude the Emissions Intensity.

Correcting for lack of mass by sticking in another equation does not solve the problem — the problem is the maths still does not describe the actual real world around us because the scenarios created by AGWScienceFiction fake fisics are of a different world built out of the non-existant massless, volumeless, attractionless, non-condensable and not bouyant in air ideal gas — because there is no air in their ideal gas atmosphere, only empty space, they do not have any atmosphere at all.

However, note that this equation does not control for any other variables, so that chain of argument is void.

This equation does not apply and has no analog in the physical atmosphere.

The Nernst equation doesn't change anywhere, or in any alternative hands.

It's been a while since I've had math classes but from what I remember reducing means part of the equation doesn't affect the answer and can be eliminated.

What she has written is that the equation does represent independent physics.

The S - B equation does not provide an «average» temp.

With «any» semitransparent atmosphere, the S - B equation does not ever apply, that is precisely the Climate Clown lie.

In which case the the sensitivity equation doesn't reflect this and formally is wrong.

The question is whether or not the change in the amounts of Co2 is large enough on scale to have the claimed effect outside of other observations because the raw physics equation doesn't side with observations.

However, the equation does acknowledge other dimensions to risk besides the hazard, over which we can have little control.

A mathmetical equation doesn't ask anyone to step outside of his / her comfort zone and take a chance.

Something in this equation doesn't add up either.

the formula for revenue revenue = products (in this case: ads) * quantity the equation doesn't involve capital (stock's purchasing)

Notice that the Gordon Equation does NOT apply.

This is not a steady rate and the Gordon Equation does not apply.

The student may choose to borrow more to attend a higher cost institution, or less to attend a lower cost one, but the decision is left to the student and the equation does not change.

In England, the reintroduction of friction into the dynamic equation does the car's reputation no harm at all.

This equation doesn't recognize hormones for their powerful influence that they can have on the body.

The reasons they propose are horribly oversimplified and their calorie balance equation doesn't explain the illnesses that develop from gaining fat.

It's important to know that adding more dietary iron to the equation doesn't always work... if that's not the root cause of the issue.

This equation does not take into consideration lean body mass.

If the equation doesn't hold true, there's a coding error.

But the equation doesn't always hold.

This is how some fractal mathematical objects, such as the Mandelbrot set — a set of complex numbers for which a particular iterated equation does not approach infinity — are generated.

I didn't get why you were supposed to use the Schrödinger equation before you measured the atom, but then, while you're measuring it, the equation doesn't apply.

However, the so called «displacements - per - atom» (dpa) number obtained from this equation does not in common metals usually correspond to any physically measurable quantity.

The Schrödinger equation does not so much describe what quantum particles are actually «doing,» rather it supplies a way of predicting what might be observed for systems governed by particular wavelike probability laws.

The whole equation doesn't make sense in a lot of ways.»

But Rechtshaffen argues the equation doesn't make sense anymore.

But Ted Rechtshaffen, president of Toronto's TriDelta Financial, argues the equation doesn't make sense anymore.

That part of the equation I didn't know.

The question is: on which side of the equation do you want to be and what are you doing to get there?

You overly - simplistic equations don't take this into effect.

But now all those equations don't interest me again.

Too bad for the education side of the budget equation they don't have someone much brighter than Dick Iannuzzi handling the union side.

Just as important as what Maxwell's equations do describe is what they don't.

Maxwell's equations didn't just change the world.

But the Einstein equation didn't give the overall picture, the global structure of the whole universe.

The prejudice against a mathematics that could not be expressed strictly by equations did not exist when Taimina grew up in Latvia under Soviet - style math schooling.

You need to use quantum mechanics to describe the physics, but those equations do not encompass gravity.

Three potential causes have been identified for this weird discrepancy: dark energy may be pushing the boundaries of universe faster and faster, sterile neutrinos may be adding something to the equation we didn't count on, or dark matter may have a bigger effect on matter or radiation than we thought.

It's a head scratching scenario at face value, because while calories and the energy balance equation do ultimately matter for weight loss — as I've said ad nauseam on this blog — sometimes the «math» of that equation isn't so neatly expressible with basic arithmetic, ie, calories in < calories out, or the now eye - rolling verbal version, «eat less move more.»