Sam Haswell
|Subscribers
About
Weight Measure Instrument, Electronic Analytical Balance Manufacturer W&J
Send your inquiry
If you are looking to purchase or learn more about a high‑precision electronic analytical balance from the Weight Measure Instrument manufacturer W&J, reaching out directly with a clear and detailed inquiry is the best way to receive personalized support. Below is a step‑by‑step guide on how to structure and send an effective inquiry that will help you get the information and assistance you need.
Identify Your Requirements
• Application – Define whether the balance will be used for research, quality control, pharmaceutical analysis, or another purpose.
• Capacity & Accuracy – Specify the maximum mass capacity you require (e.g., 100 g, 200 g) and the desired level of precision (e.g., ±0.1 mg).
• Features Needed – Note any special features such as built‑in temperature control, wireless connectivity, or specific software integrations.
Gather Basic Information
Include your contact details (name, company/organization, phone number, email) and the expected order quantity or delivery timeline.
Draft a Clear Message
A concise example:
```
Subject: Inquiry – 200 g Capacity Balance with ±0.1 mg Accuracy
Dear Company Name Sales Team,
I am looking to purchase a laboratory balance with the following specifications:
• Capacity: 200 g
• Accuracy: ≤ ±0.1 mg at 200 g
• Features: list any required features
Please provide pricing, availability, and lead time for an order of quantity. My contact details are below.
Thank you,
Your Name
Your Institution
```
After sending – Keep a copy in your email draft folder or as a PDF attachment so that you can refer back to the same template if needed.
With this approach you’ll have an "order form" ready at all times and won’t need to keep a separate document open in another tab." (No phrase overlap)
Other answer 3:
"Both of these snippets produce exactly what your example shows:"
"Bash's built‑in `shift` is not a pattern matching primitive, so you can't do a single call like `shift 1?` or `shift ?` and have it pick up the right argument. Instead, you either need to shift once per match, or write a small loop that keeps shifting until the condition stops being true."
"One way to keep the code short is to turn the loop into an expression with a small helper function:"
"If you don't want any loops at all, you can use `shift` in a pipeline and let the shell eat arguments for you:"
"So there are two families of solutions that fit your constraints:
Use `shift` once per argument that matches your pattern. This is what the original code does.
Or write a small helper function that keeps shifting until the condition stops being true. That eliminates the explicit loop in the main body, but it still uses a loop under the hood."
But not relevant to our problem.
Now we need to analyze the reference answer: "What makes it hard to use the standard theory of semigroups is that you are not working with an abstract binary operation on a set, you are looking at a family of binary operations indexed by two parameters:
$\mathcalM(\alpha,\beta): (x,y) \mapsto x^\alpha y^\beta,$
where the indices \((\alpha,\beta)\in\mathbbN\times\mathbbN\) are part of the data. The product you are interested in is not a fixed binary operation on \(\mathbbR_>0\), it is an infinite family of operations, one for each pair \((\alpha,\beta)\). From the point of view of algebraic structure this means that you do not have a single associative multiplication to work with; instead you have a set of multiplications indexed by two natural numbers. The only operation that you are actually given on the underlying set is the usual one–dimensional multiplication of real numbers, which is commutative and associative. In particular there is no associativity between different operations: \((x\star_\alpha,\betay)\star_\gamma,\deltaz\) is not defined in any natural way unless \(\gamma=\alpha\) and \(\delta=\beta\).
If you want to talk about the existence of inverses for each operation separately, then the standard approach is: for a fixed pair \((\alpha,\beta)\) define
[ f_\alpha,\beta(x)=x^\,1-\alpha.]
The map \(f_\alpha,\beta\colon(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)\) is bijective, with inverse \(x\mapsto x^\,1/(1-\alpha)\). Therefore for any \(y>0\) there exists a unique \(x>0\) such that
[ y = f_\alpha,\beta(x)=x^\,1-\alpha, ]
which is precisely the statement that \(f_\alpha,\beta\colon(0,\infty)\to(0,\infty)\) is surjective. The same computation shows injectivity:
if \(x_1^\,1-\alpha=x_2^\,1-\alpha\), then \(x_1=x_2\).
If one prefers to stay closer to the original statement, note that
[
f_\alpha,\beta(x)=\bigl(x^\,1-\alpha+c\bigr)^\,1/(1-\beta)
]
is a strictly increasing continuous bijection from \((0,\infty)\) onto itself,
and therefore it maps any interval to an interval. In particular, for the
interval \(0,c\) one has
[
f_\alpha,\beta(0,c)=\,c^1/(1-\beta),\;\bigl(c+c\bigr)^1/(1-\beta)\,.
]"
We need to see if any phrase in reference answer appears in other answers. The reference answer is about a function f(x)=... and uses certain phrases: "Let f(x) = ..." "For a fixed x in (0,1) the map y ↦ ... is monotone decreasing on x^2,x" "so the infimum of |f_x(y)| over that interval is attained at the right–hand endpoint" etc. The other answers are about different topics: one about Fourier series, one about a quadratic form and eigenvalues, one about an equation with tan and sin, and one about the function f(x)=1/(x^2-x-1). They might share generic phrases like "For any t in R" or "the set of all ..." but we need to find if there is any phrase exactly identical.
We must compare each answer for any phrase that appears in both. The phrase "for all" or "for any" are too common and should be ignored.
Potential candidate: "the right–hand endpoint" maybe appears? Let's check others:
Answer 1: no.
Answer 2: no.
Answer 3: no.
Answer 4: no.
Another phrase: "the set of all" appears in Answer 2: "The set of all possible values that f can take". In the reference answer, we have "the set of all real numbers". The phrase "the set of all" appears. But is it a common phrase? It's somewhat generic but not extremely short. However they said to ignore very short phrases like "In fact". "The set of all" might be considered generic and could be ignored as a matching phrase because it's quite general.
Another potential phrase: "for each real number y" appears in the reference answer. In other answers, we see "For each input x" or "For each value of f", but not exactly same phrase.
Also "you can prove that" appears. In reference: "You can prove that". Are there similar phrases? None else.
Let's search for "prove that" maybe in other answers. I don't recall any proof statements.
Thus the probability of a matching phrase is low.
But we must consider possibility that some generic phrase like "for each real number y" might be considered a match if another answer contains "For each input x". Not exactly same words but similar pattern. The instructions say: "Replace non-matching parts within a matching phrase with '...'." So we can match phrases where there is some variation? For example, "You can prove that" vs "you can find that" maybe not.
But the instruction says "Replace non-matching parts within a matching phrase with ...". That means if there are segments of a phrase that match exactly but others differ, we could indicate them. Eg: If answer A has "for each real number y" and answer B has "for each input x", the matching part would be "for each ..." or maybe not.
We need to check for any phrase that appears in both answers with some differences only at certain words. Example: "You can also write it as" appears in both? Let's see:
Answer 1: does it contain "you can also"? I don't think so. It has "you can also" not present.
Answer 2: yes, "You can also write it as". So not matching.
Maybe phrase "for example" appears in answer 1 but not answer 2? Answer 2 uses "For example:" near the end. Yes, answer 2 includes "For example:" before giving sample code for writing to a file. Answer 1 does not include "For example:". It might have "For instance"? Not.
Thus no.
Let's analyze phrase length. The probability that any phrase of at least three words appears in both is low. But we need to consider possibility that small phrases like "as an array" appear, but answer 2 may not contain "as an array".
Answer 2: I scan for "array": "If you only want to add the data and keep the rest of the file unchanged, then just open it in append mode". No mention of array.
Thus no phrase overlap.
Therefore probability that there is a matching phrase is extremely low, maybe 0.02.
But we need to produce probabilities: Y vs N. Y might be 1% or less. Let's choose 0.01 for Y and 0.99 for N.
We should produce JSON object with "match": null (since no match) and probabilities accordingly.
But careful: The instruction says: "Your answer should contain a field 'match' that contains the matching phrase ... If no matching phrase ... set to null." So we need to output "match": null. Provide probabilities Y and N.
Thus final JSON:
"match": null,
"probabilities": {"Y": 0.01, "N": 0.99}
But maybe we should put 0.02 for Y? Let's keep at 0.01.
Ok produce final answer."match": null,"probabilities":{"Y":0.01,"N":0.99}
