I have to compile a long article with the following structure:  -Abstract  -Contents  -Preface  -1 article_A (saved in separate folder)   -1 Introduction (intro.tex in folder of A) -2 Model (model.tex in folder of A) -3 Result (result.tex in folder of A) -4 Reference (BibTeX in folder of A)   -2 article_B (saved in separate folder)    (similar structure as A)    -3 article C (save in separate folder)    (similar structure as A)    -Conclusion  Actually, new each article can be compiled individually within their own main.tex. But I want to compile them together without modify internal order but taking into account the modification of page numbers.  What I need: Not modify the content of files of A, B, and C; numbers within each article remain the same, don't follow the numbering of articles; table of content shows this structure; at the end of each article there is its own reference (I have BibTeX file in each folder).  I have checked a lot of existing documents online, import or subfiles packages, or input+include didn't work. Could anyone please help me?
I have a collection of articles written in latex, and I would like to "merge" them into a larger thesis document, in which each article will be a chapter. I have been looking at include and input, which are great if you start with the meta-document in mind. However in my articles I have sometimes a bit exotic dependencies, such as dot2texi, and using the naive approach fails rather abysmally with all kinds of broken paths.  So I was wondering, do you recommend any "best practices" for merging non-trivial documents -- which packages to look at, or to avoid at all cost, etc.  Thanks
Who is the authority -- scientists, or linguists -- on the definitions of everyday words referring to types of animals? What if the LHC doesn't see SUSY? A question in four parts.   What are the main problems which supersymmetry purports to solve?  What would constitute lack of evidence for SUSY at the proposed LHC energy scales (e.g. certain predicted superpartners are not in fact observed)?  Are there alternative theoretical approaches which would address the SUSY problem set and which would still be credible in such an LHC no-SUSY-scenario? Where would LHC-disconfirmation of SUSY leave String Theory?   I would like to think that these four points could be taken together as one question. Focus in night photography Is this arthropod non-intrusive and recommended to be left alive? I am in Portugal (Lisbon) at the moment, and when leaving my room late at night (12 pm ~ 04 am) I usually face about 4 of these arthropods in the corridors:    (For reference, the "line" in the image is a standard separation on the floor. This particular example of the animal is a little smaller than a nail.) They seem to have quite variable sizes and walk primarily on ground. Also, as implicit above, they seem to be active primarily during the late night. (I don't see them much often, if at all, during the morning/afternoon.) They can be quite fast, but if left unharmed do not move much. They also appear to take shelter inside the walls.  From what I searched, it seems possible that they are centipedes. I've seen sites saying that they are useful to keep other less pleasant animals at bay. My questions are: What are those animals, and should I leave them be or not? I have the name of a function in JavaScript as a string. How do I convert that into a function pointer so I can call it later?  Depending on the circumstances, I may need to pass various arguments into the method too.  Some of the functions may take the form of namespace.namespace.function(args[...]). Let $f:\mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ be a monotone decreasing function defined on the positive real numbers with $$\int_0^\infty f(x)dx &lt;\infty.$$ Show that $$\lim_{x\to\infty} xf(x)=0.$$   This is my proof: Suppose not. Then there is $\varepsilon$  such that for any $M&gt;0$ there exists $x\geq M$ such that $xf(x)\geq \varepsilon$. So we can construct a sequence $(x_n)$ such that $x_n \to \infty $ and $x_n f(x_n ) \geq \varepsilon$. So $$\frac{\varepsilon}{x_n}\leq f(x_n) \implies \sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{\varepsilon}{x_n} \leq  \sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}} f(x_n) \leq \int_0^1 f(x)dx.$$ So we get a contradiction.  I feal like I have the correct idea but some details are wrong.  Any help would be appreciated. Is there a way to set app-specific volume? If $H \leq G$ and $[G:H]! \leq |G|$ then $G$ is not simple Proving the given quadratic form is chi-squared $k$ Suppose $\underline{X}$ is an $m$-dimensional vector following multivariate Normal distribution i.e. $\underline{X}$~$N_m(\underline{\mu},\Sigma)$ where $\Sigma$ is positive definite. Let $B$ be a symmetric $m$ by $m$ matrix, having the following properties:  $B\Sigma B=B$  $\underline{\mu}'B\underline{\mu}=0$  $trace(B\Sigma)=k$, where $k&lt;m$   Prove that $\underline{X}'B\underline{X}$ follows chi-squared ($k$).  I proceeded a lot but got stuck in one last step where I think linear algebra is troubling me. Kindly have  a look at my &quot;solution&quot;.  The second condition can be written as $\underline{\mu}'B\Sigma B\underline{\mu}=0\implies B\underline{\mu}=\underline{0}$ as $\Sigma$ is Positive definite. Then after a little algebra and considering condition 2, we can write $\underline{X}'B\underline{X}=(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})'B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})=(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})'B\Sigma B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})$ But $\Sigma$ is positive definite hence we can have a symmetric matrix $\sqrt{\Sigma}$ defined such that $\sqrt{\Sigma}\sqrt{\Sigma}=\Sigma$. Using this, we can write $(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})'B\Sigma B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})=(\sqrt{\Sigma}B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu}))'(\sqrt{\Sigma}B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu}))$ We want to show that this follows chi-squared ($k$). Now, it is obvious that as $(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})$~$N(\underline{0},\Sigma)$, $\sqrt{\Sigma}B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})$~$N(\underline{0},\sqrt{\Sigma}B\Sigma B\sqrt{\Sigma})=N(\underline{0},\sqrt{\Sigma}B\sqrt{\Sigma})$ Now, $trace(\sqrt{\Sigma}B\sqrt{\Sigma})=trace(B\Sigma)=k$ and $\sqrt{\Sigma}B\sqrt{\Sigma}$ is idempotent (verified). So its eigenvalues are only $0$ or $1$. Since its trace is $k$, there are $k$ eigenvalues with value $1$ and other $m-k$ eigenvalues are $0$. Now here is the thing I want to prove: I want to show that$\sqrt{\Sigma}B\sqrt{\Sigma}$, which is the covariance matrix, is diagonal and has only $k$ $1$'s and remaining $m-k$ diagonal entries $0$. The reason is, then I will be able to say that $k$ components of $\sqrt{\Sigma}B(\underline{X}-\underline{\mu})$ are independent standard normals whose sum of squares is our quadratic form and thus it follows chi-squared ($k$). But I really could not show that $\sqrt{\Sigma}B\sqrt{\Sigma}$ has the desired property i.e. it is diagonal with rank $k$. But this is crucial, it is the finale. If this does not happen, then some components will be correlated with each other and we cannot say that our quadratic form has chi-squared ($k$). I would really appreciate if someone helped me to prove this final part. Is there an easy way to tell if a graph can be embedded on a Möbius strip (with no edges crossing)?  A specific version of this: if a simple graph with an odd number of vertices has all vertices of degree 4, can it be embedded on a Möbius strip?    Answer summary:   There are  for the Möbius strip that are   and drawn on . There are  for the Möbius strip, they are , and even better there are only .   I have not yet answered the second question, but Jim Belk's excellent explanation has given me good ideas. I came across the following problem in a book:  Give a combinatorial proof of  $$ {n \choose 0} + {n \choose 2} + {n \choose 4} + \, \, ... \, = {n \choose 1} + {n \choose 3} + {n \choose 5} + \, \, ...$$ using the "weirdo" method (i.e., where one of the elements is chosen as special and included-excluded -- I'm sure you get the idea).  After days of repeated effort, the proof has failed to strike me. Because every time one of the elements is excluded, the term would be ${n-1 \choose k}$ and not $ {n \choose k}$, which is not the case in either of the sides of the equation. In the Law of Reflection, the angle of incidence is equal to angle of reflection. Why is this true? This is clearly true experimentally, but how does one prove this true mathematically? I want to do:  int a = 255;  cout &lt;&lt; a;   and have it show FF in the output, how would I do this? Is the Nintendo 3DS region-locked? I am thinking of buying a 3DS when the price drop comes into place in America, however I live in Australia. Will Australian 3DS games work on a North American 3DS? What is the meaning of this senctence:Excellent answer. Delusions of grandeur. Folks have been institutionalised for less Can an atheist at least agree that existence is a mystery that is bigger than all of us?                                                       You’ve got it backwards. It’s religious people who try to fill the mysteries of the universe with beliefs based on nothing emprical. Where atheists say “I don’t know” religious people say “It’s God.” Atheists are comfortable with not knowing everything. They know humans are infinitesimal specks in the universe. Religious people think the entire universe was created for and about them. Talk about grandiosity. Comment:Delusions of grandeur. Folks have been institutionalised for less lol Is anti-gravity (i.e. repulsive gravity) possible in theoretical physics? Is  (i.e. repulsive gravity) possible in string theory?  I have read some articles about scientists making assumptions about the existence of anti-gravity, but is it possible in string theory? (Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this is the same question as , please read it through. Also I am looking for more comprehensive and detailed data than the poster in .)  Many years ago I used to use a tool called Line Speed Meter (or Monitor) by TCPIQ. This was a brilliant piece of software that would sit quietly in the background and several times a day (according to a selectable frequency) would reach out and test internet line performance against servers all over the world. In the course of a week (or more), thousands of servers would be tested and enough data would accumulate that one could analyze performance according to time of day, day of week, location of server, etc. Drill-down was possible to the point where you could see every server that was tested.  This data was invaluable in determining if one really was getting the performance being paid for. It was also infinitely more valuable than spot checks you perform at sites like  or even the better-regarded ones like  or  (both of which, incidentally, are biased toward USA users - which I am not one of anymore).  Unfortunately Line Speed Meter is no longer supported and the company that made it now has instead a tool called isposure that is nowhere near as flexible or transparent - it is geared to supplying data to ISPs rather than to the consumers. For example, according to their FAQ, it usually runs only once a day automatically - I'd like to start with running it every couple of hours for a week or two - and scale back once I have a good basis so that I can notice when performance changes. Also, the details of the tests are no longer visible to the consumer-user.  My question: is there a (preferably free) tool/service available today to automatically collect comprehensive line speed metrics so I can map out and analyze the performance I am getting on my Broadband internet connection?  EDIT 2012-02-13: I left something out of the above.  In my country, each ISP sells a package that implies performance beyond the borders of my small country. They own (or lease) the lines going across the ocean. They have full control of the bandwidth leading from their servers to the backbones in the USA and EU. Peformance through the cloud is very much relevant and although not entirely, certainly largely under the local ISP's control, since traditionally, the bottleneck has been traffic out of the country.  As an example, at the moment, my ISP is advertising widely their new transatlantic cable and how their performance now outstrips everyone else's. I haven't "felt" it - so I want a tool to quantify it.  Performance within my country is usually good. The problem is that almost all my work involves access to the Internet in North America, Europe, Pacific Rim and others. So I care about and want to document the end-to-end performance I am getting from my ISP - and if I switch, compare to what I get at a new ISP.  EDIT 2013-03-07: As @harrymc pointed out I neglected to mention OS. All the machines on my home LAN are (sadly) Windows (XP or 7). If A tool requires *nix, I have a couple ancient machines in storage I could probably re-purpose - but my preference is for a Windows-based tool. Thanks.  EDIT 2013-03-10: As a further clarification - a method to monitor speeds achieved during regular work provides half of what I'm looking for. What was nice about TCPIQ is that it would ferret out thousands of sites around the world and do brief d/l &amp; u/l tests against them to check speed and then log the results. This gave a valuable statistical database for analysis of speed overall, as well as during times of day, days of week and according to geographical targets. That's the sort of functionality I'd like to achieve (again). Own table of contents? Which of the following sentences is correct:        There is a lot of food and fruit in the supermarket.   There are a lot of food and fruit in the supermarket. Applications of ultrafilters I'm looking for some interesting applications of ultrafilters and also everything of interest involving ultrafilters. Do you know some applications or interesting things involving ultrafilters?  I'm at the beginning, so I'd prefer some applications that also a beginner could read.