From two weeks I'm thinking about performing statistics in my LaTeX document to improve the way I write (and for curiosity). I would like to retrieve the distribution of words I'm using most, and other things like that. I know there are many tools to do that, but I'm not sure which is the easiest way to do it in my TeX document.
I would like to convert a large LaTeX project (i.e. spanning multiple files) into plain text. The purpose is generation of statistics, so representing mathematics is not an issue. In fact, all mathematics is ideally ignored.  I have found  but could not get it to run. It seems unfinished, but is exactly what I am looking for otherwise.
Removal of statistically significant intercept term increases $R^2$ in linear model "To be subject to" vs. "to be subjected to" How to use THAT and WHO We know that for a position variable $x$ and momentum $p$, the uncertainties of the two quantities are bounded by  $$\Delta x \Delta p \gtrsim \hbar$$  Now, this is usually first explained with $x$ being a simple linearly measured position and $p$ being linear momentum.  But it should apply to any good coordinate and its conjugate momentum.  It should, for instance, apply to angle $\phi$ about the $z$ axis, and angular momentum $L_z$:  $$\Delta \phi \Delta L_z \gtrsim \hbar$$  The thing is, $\Delta \phi$ can never be greater than $2\pi$.  I mean, you have to have some value of $\phi$ and $\phi$ only runs from 0 to $2\pi$.  Therefore  $$\Delta L_z \gtrsim \hbar/\Delta \phi \geq \hbar/2\pi$$  But, uh-oh!  This means it is impossible for $\Delta L_z$ to be zero, and we should never be able to have angular momentum states with definite $L_z$ values.  Of course, it doesn't mean that.  But I have never figured out how this is not in contradiction with the Schroedinger eqn. calculations that give us states with definite values of $L_z$.  Can anyone help me out?  One answer I anticipate is that $\phi$ is sort of "abstract" in that if you chose your origin at some other point you will get completely different values of $\phi$ and $L_z$, and ipso facto, usual considerations don't apply.  I don't think this will work, though.  Consider a "quantum bead" sliding around on a rigid circular ring and you get the exact same problem with no ambiguity in $\phi$ or $L_z$.  (Well, there will be some limited ambiguity in $\phi$, but still, there won't be in $L_z$.) Installing an HP Laserjet 1000 I've already installed hplip, it printed a test page, but it won't print from any program. It shows the printer in the list of printers, and it's checked as the default printer. I've restarted a couple times.   When I plugged the USB cable for the printer into the computer after installing hplip, it said printer detected. Then after a couple seconds it said the printer was ready for use.   When I send something to the printer, a pop-up shows that a document was sent to the printer - but there's a triangle with an exclamation point in it next to the message. A few seconds another pop-up indicates that the printer has completed printing the job but it didn't print anything. How can I tell which cards or sets are currently legal in various formats? I haven't played Magic: the Gathering since the days of Onslaught and Mirrodin, and I would like to try to catch back up. Since all my cards are quite dated now, I may be more interested in formats other than the most up-to-date one.  Rather than ask what is currently legal in various formats (since that is likely too localized), I would rather pose the question of how can I tell which sets/cards are legal in each format. Do messages from feeds prevent freezing/deleting a chat room? Children's book with "square triangles" in parallel universe? In the 1960s I read book--an older children's book, I think--which I loved, and still remember, roughly.  I have no idea what the title is or who the author is, and I'm wondering if anyone knows this one:  Scientists had invented a device which they didn't fully understand, and which had puzzling effects.  For example, when a pencil was put into the machine, it disappeared, and then reappeared inside out: The lead was on the outside.  When people went into the machine, they came back dead, having died from fright.  Finally they sent a very open-minded person into the machine.  She was an artist, I think.  She was able to return alive, and described an alternate universe in which geometry was very different.  I distinctly remember that there were supposedly square triangles or four-sided triangles--or was it three-sided squares?  (This is, of course, a literally contradictory claim, but I didn't see the matter as clearly then.)  Thanks! Algorithm for determining random events I'm struggling with coming up with an elegant solution to generating random events in the game that I'm working on.  Say there are 4 classes of events that can happen, with varying events in those classes that may occur.  So something along the lines of   main_events = {"common event", "not so common event", "somewhat rare event", "rare event"} sub_events[0] = {"common event 1", "common event 2",..} ...   I have a somewhat kludgey solution in place that first just has a random number generated between 0 and 100, and if the number falls within a given range then a main event will be triggered.  Then I'll do another random roll to see which sub event occurs.  Is there a better solution than something along these lines?  Like I mention, it doesn't feel very elegant, and I'd like to make it easily expandable for the addition of future events. I have some plasterboard screws like this:     However, without a drill I have a job getting them into the wall. Am I safe to use normal screws on hangings that aren't going to be taking a great deal of weight? In this case it is a rack of coat hooks. PHP error in .xml file? I attempted a proof of mathematical induction using an arbitrary base case, but was unsuccessful (and hence this question). Below is what I was trying to do and along with my thinking; if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.  The induction I am using: Let $P$ be a property about the natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ with $0\in\mathbb{N}$, and let $P(n)$ denote the statement that the property $P$ holds for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Suppose $P(0)$. Furthermore suppose that for each natural number $k$, $P(k)$ implies $P(k+1)$. Then $\forall nP(n)$.  What I am trying to prove: Let $P$ be a property about the natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ with $0\in\mathbb{N}$, and let $P(n)$ denote the statement that the property $P$ holds for $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Suppose for $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$, $P(n_0)$. Furthermore suppose that for each natural number $k\geq n_0$, $P(k)$ implies $P(k+1)$. Then $\forall n\geq n_0 P(n)$.  My attempted proof: define $Q(n)$ to be $n\geq n_0 \to P(n)$. Then we wish to prove $\forall nQ(n)$. We induct on $n$.  Base case (for ordinary induction): $Q(0)$ is $0\geq n_0\to P(0)$. Since $n_0\in\mathbb{N}$, $0\geq n_0$ implies that $n_0=0$. Since $P(n_0)$, $P(0)$, which proves the base case.  Inductive step: we want to show $\forall n(Q(n)\to Q(n+1))$. To do this, we assume $k\geq n_0 \to P(k)$ and try to show $k+1\geq n_0 \to P(k+1)$.  Since $k\geq n_0 \to P(k)$, we first prove the case where $k\geq n_0$ and $P(k)$. By the hypothesis of the proof, we see that $P(k+1)$, which proves the case for $k+1$.  This is where I am having trouble: For $k&lt;n_0$, I am unable to show the implication for $k+1$.  So my questions would be: (1) is the overall approach for the proof correct? (2) If so, how might I go on to prove the case when $k&lt;n_0$?  Thanks in advance. (This is not homework, by the way.) Is linear algebra more “fully understood” than other maths disciplines? In , it was discussed how LA is a foundation to other branches of mathematics, be they pure or applied. One answer argued that linear problems are fully understood, and hence a natural target to reduce pretty much anything to.   Now, it's evident enough that such a linearisation, if possible, tends to make hard things easier. Find a Hilbert space hidden in your domain, obtain an orthonormal basis, and bam, any point/state can be described as a mere sequence of numbers, any mapping boils down to a matrix; we have some good theorems for existence of inverses / eigenvectors/exponential objects / etc..  So, LA sure is convenient.  OTOH, it seems unlikely that any nontrivial mathematical system could ever be said to be thoroughly understood. Can't we always find new questions within any such framework that haven't been answered yet? I'm not firm enough with G&ouml;del's incompleteness theorems to judge whether they are relevant here. The first incompleteness theorem says that discrete disciplines like number theory can't be both complete and consistent. Surely this is all the more true for e.g. topology.  Is LA for some reason exempt from such arguments, or does it for some other reason deserve to be called the best understood branch of mathematics? Create an instance of a class from a string Group member cannot write even with write permission I'm totally new to Ubuntu/Linux, using Ubuntu Server at the moment. Just trying to  figure out something basic.   How can you tell where you are installing a program. For example I just installed Sphinx search engine by placing the tarball that I downloaded from their site to my:  /home/sphinx   directory. I created the sphinx directory to place that tarball in. Then I ran these commands:  tar xvzf sphinx-0.9.8.1.tar.gz cd sphinx-0.9.8.1/ ./configure --with-mysql-includes=/usr/include/mysql --with-mysql-libs=/usr/lib/mysql   and then these:  make sudo make install   Now I have a lot of files sitting in the directory where I ran these commands. Is this my Spynx installation or did it install somewhere else?  In windows if you run an installer (.exe file) anywhere the program will still install in your C:\Program Files directory. Does something similar apply to linux where all programs are installed in a central place, or can you install programs anywhere on the system.  Questions   I would prefer to keep all my installed programs in one place so what is the right place for this in terms of best practice. In other words what is the Linux equivalent of C:\Program Files? And how does one always install at this location, is it just a matter of placing the tarball and running the install commands from this location? What about if I use sudo apt-get to install a package. How can I point to this location to tell apt-get to always install there? Zombie process using 100% CPU A zombie process, which should not be using any resources (RAM and CPU), is hogging up an entire core on my 8-core 64-bit Ubuntu 11.10 Desktop installation.  This is the output of ps -el|grep Z:  F S   UID   PID  PPID  C PRI  NI ADDR SZ WCHAN  TTY          TIME CMD 0 Z  1000 10317     1 99  80   0 -     0 exit   ?        19:27:15 java &lt;defunct&gt;   ... and here is an excerpt from top:    PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND                                                                                                                                                 10317 deltik    20   0     0    0    0 Z  100  0.0   1170:17 java &lt;defunct&gt;  1424 root      20   0  612m 193m 158m S   14  2.4 287:17.11 Xorg 12580 deltik    20   0  710m 135m  46m S    5  1.7  27:31.07 compiz   This is how the zombie process came to existence:   I opened a Java JAR called . This launcher downloads another JAR file to ~/.minecraft/bin/minecraft.jar That JAR was executing when I locked my computer with xscreensaver. Then, I entered my password to unlock the computer, and I saw that the Minecraft window was frozen. I tried killing it (PID 10317) with gnome-system-monitor. It became a zombie. kill -9 10317 was ineffective. xkill only closed the window titled "Minecraft"; it didn't close the underlying java process.   Relevant information:   The graphics driver is FGLRX, and it has caused notorious issues with  of  and , including sometimes high CPU usage of Xorg and compiz.   I want to know:   What way is there to destroy this process of java without restarting, if any? Why is this issue happening? What can I do to prevent this issue from happening again? I'm thinking about buying the new MacBook Pro with 4 USB-C ports.  I want to attach two screens, mouse and keyboard and ethernet to the MacBook Pro while using the fewest number of USB-C ports possible.  So what I need is an adaptor with:   two DP or HDMI ports (or one DP port with daisy chaining support) two or more USB ports an ethernet port   Best case would be a hub to which all devices are connected with a single connection to the MacBook Pro, including power supply. Worst case if attaching the MacBook Pro to the devices would require me to use all four of USB-C ports.  Given the answers up to far, I can tell that:   Daisy chaining might or might not work with the MacBook Pro (since it requires DP1.2 which is supported by the graphics chipset, but it's uncertain if it's supported by the MacBook Pro itself) I can attach the monitors with two cables as a last resort, leaving me with two ports for the remaining peripherals.   What I still don't know:   Would daisy chaining work with a hub or does it require the first monitor to be directly attached to the MacBook Pro? Does some kind of hub exist supporting attachment of all listed devices with a single upstream connection to the MacBook Pro? This applies to all d20 systems, but with an example from the from the Pathfinder  (emphasis mine):  Stonecunning: Dwarves receive a +2 bonus on Perception checks to potentially notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors located in stone walls or floors. They receive a check to notice such features whenever they pass within 10 feet of them, whether or not they are actively looking.  In this case, does the GM roll the check in secret or ask the player roll the check? If the GM asks the player to roll for the check, what stops situations like:  GM: (interrupting) &quot;Gimli, Roll a perception check.&quot; Dwarf player: &quot;Oh, it's a natural one, I guess I don't see anything.&quot; Human player: &quot;Okay, I'll roll a perception check for anything unusual in this room. Nice! 19. How about 19, does 19 work for you?&quot; GM: &quot;Gimli, everything looks kosher to you. Aragon, you notice a rock coloured tarp on the ground here, covering what looks like a pit trap.&quot;  In this case, by telling the dwarf to roll his &quot;free&quot; perception check, he's telegraphed to the players that there is something to notice. How can this be fixed, without bluffing checks for nothing in particular to throw off the signal to noise ratio of similar checks? What if the hard disk is partitioned into more than 26 sections in Windows?