Sandbox

Question

The Maximally Satirical Sandbox Model (MSSM)

The Maximally Satirical Sandbox Model is a model of an ideal sandbox, which can be stated as follows:- continued collaborative perturbations to the "Sandbox functional" results in \(\delta S=0\) where S is satire. This is equivalent through a simple R transformation (where R is reflection), to the Minimally Satirical Sandbox Model. The knowledge of the existence of knowledge of these two models can then be used to prove the PhysicsOverflow concavity theorem.

On the non-perturbative formulation of sock theory and the long standing missing sock problem

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model (MSSM) is a supersymmetric \(\mathcal{N}=1\) matrix model that describes socks and sockinos. Socks are described as spin-2 massless particles while sockinos are described as spin 3/2 particles. Spontaneous supersymmetry breaking causes sockinos to gain mass, which explains the spontaneous disappearance of socks and their decoupling from the sockinos, besides when in a high-energy state, during which both sock disappear spontaneously and couple with their respective shoes and shoeinos (they are prevented from decoupling from their shoe because of Sock exclusion).

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model exhibits S-duality with the Minimally Supersymmetric Shoe Model (MSSM). This means that a strongly-coupled sock is equivalent to a weakly-coupled shoe. This is unsurprising, because a very tight sock is the same as a very loose shoe, but the reverse is much more astonishing: a weakly-coupled sock is equivalent to a strongly-coupled shoe, i.e. a very loose sock is the same as a very tight shoe.

The Minimally Supersymmetric Sock Model also exhibits T-duality with the Minimally Supersymmetric Glove Model. This means that a very small sock is a very large glove, and vice versa.

This is an answer to the unsolved problem posted on Stack Exchange a few years ago, that was unfairly closed as being off-topic, despite the strong correlation observed by Shoesock Gloveson between the percentage of off-topic questions and the overall quality of a site.

april-fools

Comments

@ArnoldNeumaier Fixed : )

---

comment on question

---

comment - original revision.

If you see this comment, it means that there's a pretty annoying bug present in the autosave feature.

---

original revision of the comment.

---

please click again to confirm.

---

,/test

---

much of the text appears twice, which is boring rather than funny.

Answer 1

Test stranges LaTex behavior in the body of submissions as for example here https://physicsoverflow.org/38924/superposition-memory-unlocking-quantum-automatic-complexity

$0^n1^n$

$n=2$

$n=2$

$n=60$

$n=60$

$Q_s(x)$

$Q_s(x)$

$x$

$(n,q)$

$(n,q)$

$G$

$PU(n)$

$PU(n)$

$U_0,U_1\in G$

$|G|≤q$

$\{e_k\}$

$\{e_k\}$

$U_xe_1=e_2$

$U_ye_1≠e_2$

$y≠x$

$|y|=|x|$

$Q_s$

$$Q_s(0^21^2)≤(2,12)<(3,1)≤Q_s(0^{60}1^{60})$$

$Q_s(0^{120})≤(2,121)$

Ok, the problem is that when copying the abstract from the arXiv the LaTex is in italic so that it does not compile here on PO...

Answer 2

Test

\(x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}\)

Comments

It should be $x_{1,2}$.

---

@VladimirKalitvianski It's the default equation in the latex field, I was just testing fonts.

---

Font is not as important as math :-)

Answer 3

This is a test: $$\frac 1 2$$

Answer 4

\(x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}\)

Answer 5

$$\begin{align*}
  E(R_{i,t})    &= E(\alpha_i)+E(\beta_{i,F_1 } F_{1,t})+E(\beta_{i,F_2 } F_{2,t})+\ldots+E(\beta_{i,F_m } F_{m,t}) \\
  \bar{R}_{i,t} &= a+\hat{\beta}_{i,F_1 } E(F_{1,t})+\hat{\beta}_{i,F_2 } E(F_{2,t})+\ldots+\hat{\beta}_{i,F_m } E(F_{m,t}) \\
  \bar{R}_{i,t} &= a+\gamma_1\hat{\beta}_{i,F_1 } +\gamma_2\hat{\beta}_{i,F_2 } F_{2,t}+\ldots+\gamma_m\hat{\beta}_{i,F_m }
\end{align*}$$

Answer 6

>let there be light

let there be light

Answer 7

$$PHYSICS$$ 

$$physics$$

Answer 8

LaTex Elchtest

$$
g_{mn} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
    g_{\mu\nu} & g_{\mu 5} \\
    g_{5\nu} &  g_{55} \\
\end{array}
\right)
$$

$$
\sum\limits_{I.J} R_{I.J} a_1^{I\dagger} \bar{a}_1^{I\dagger} ¦p^{+},\vec{p}_T \rangle
$$

Edit to test the edit history

Edit2

Comments

Why can I not see the edit history of this newly added answer?

---

It can be seen now.  

---

Test @Dilaton

---

Reply test

---

another test

Answer 9

This answer is waiting for your approval

This is an answer!

Answer 10

test single dollar sign$F_{\mu\nu}$