How does one start drawing electric fields.you are given two charge.now there are infinite electric field lines so how do you show greater electric field by drawing denser lines.After all there can be infinite lines in between.
When we're dealing with problems in electrostatics (especially when we use Gauss' law) we often refer to the density of electric , which is inversely proportional to the radius in the case of a single point charge (all field lines are directed radially).   My question may sound dumb, despite the fact that this concept is quite intuitive, but if you think about it there is actually an infinite amount of field lines which we can draw everywhere (one through every point), so speaking of an area where field lines are more "dense" or "sparse" doesn't make much sense to me.  With this in mind, why can we still use such a concept? Why does it really work?
Prove that $\left| f'(x)\right| \leq \sqrt{2AC}$ using integration Suppose that $f(x)$ is a $C^2$ function on $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\left| f(x) \right| \leq A$ and $\left| f''(x) \right| \leq C $ for $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Prove that $\left| f'(x)\right| \leq \sqrt{2AC}$. (Originally  by AJAY.)  What is the geometric, physical, or other meaning of the third derivative of a function at a point?  If you have interesting things to say about the meaning of the first and second derivatives, please do so. I have a SQL Server instance that has a linked server to an Oracle server. There is a table on the Oracle server called PersonOptions which contains the following data:  ╔══════════╦══════════╗ ║ PersonID ║ OptionID ║ ╠══════════╬══════════╣ ║        1 ║ A        ║ ║        1 ║ B        ║ ║        2 ║ C        ║ ║        3 ║ B        ║ ║        4 ║ A        ║ ║        4 ║ C        ║ ╚══════════╩══════════╝   I need to pivot that data so the results are:  ╔══════════╦═════════╦══════════╦══════════╗ ║ PersonID ║ OptionA ║ Option B ║ Option C ║ ╠══════════╬═════════╬══════════╬══════════╣ ║        1 ║       1 ║        1 ║          ║ ║        2 ║         ║          ║        1 ║ ║        3 ║         ║        1 ║          ║ ║        4 ║       1 ║          ║        1 ║ ╚══════════╩═════════╩══════════╩══════════╝   Any suggestions? I've been trying to prove that given a ring $R$ and a collection of ideals $\{I_{\beta}\}_{\beta \in B}$ in $R$, the set $$\sum_{\beta \in B} I_{\beta}=\{f_1+\cdots+f_r:f_j \in I_{\beta_j}, \mbox{ for some } I_{\beta_j}\}$$ is an ideal and is the smallest ideal containing $\cup_{\beta \in B} I_{\beta}$.  I've already proved when I only have two ideals, and so, using induction, I've seen it for finite sums. But I don't see how to generalise that to an arbitrary family of indexes (maybe infinite) $\beta$.   Could someone please give me a hand? Thank you. Is there a contraction for "I was"?    There are contractions for "I am" (I'm), "I will" (I'll), "I have" (I've), "I would" (I'd), and yet the simple past tense seems conspicuously missing. Why is that? Does that reasoning apply to "I did" and "I had" as well? Is there a good equivalent implementation of strptime() available for Windows?  Unfortunately, this POSIX function does not appear to be available.   - summary: it converts a text string such as "MM-DD-YYYY HH:MM:SS" into a tm struct, the opposite of strftime(). Helix in a helix I am trying to work out a "helix in a helix" mathematically.  Intuitively I think of this as a steel cable, which is made up of a number of smaller steel cables all bound together in spiral.  If I wanted to find the length of one of the individual cables, it would be bound in a spiral in the smaller cable and then those cables bound in a larger spiral cable.  I know that if I wanted to do a helix whose ends meet, I would use the parametrization $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},b\sin(\omega{t})),t=0..2\pi$$ I've been trying to map out in my head how to, instead of curling the helix, making the helix travel in the path of a helix.  I've achieved it partially with $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},t),t=0..\infty$$ But this doesn't keep the smaller helix in tact, and turns it into a sine wave helix.  I've also tried  $$((a+b\cos(\omega{t}))\cos{t},(a+b\cos(\omega{t})\sin{t},tb\sin(\omega{t})),t=0..2\pi$$ But this gives me sort of a nautilus shape where the helix curls into itself and increases in size and curls around into itself.  What am I missing?  EDIT:  Also, what if we wanted to do this again, like a 'helix in a helix in a ... in a helix'? In my scene I have a camera sitting at the origin. I would like to contraint it so that it always looks at the center of a given object. But the camera should not change its position.  I found some answers using a "TrackTo" or "LockedTrack" constraint but could not manage to make it work.  Could I probably use a Driver for this and if yes, how can I adjust it?  Thanks in advance! CodeIgniter Anchor error: URL not found on this server Showing that a one-to-one linear transformation maps a linearly independent set onto a linearly independent set Problem 4.3.32 in Linear Algebra, Lay:  Let $V$ and $W$ be vector spaces, let $T:V\to W$ be a linear transformation, and let $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ be a subset of $V$. Suppose that $T$ is a one-to-one transformation [...]. Show that if the set of images $\{T(\mathbf{v}_1), \dots ,T(\mathbf{v}_p)\}$ is linearly dependent, then $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ is linearly dependent. This fact shows that a one-to-one linear transformation maps a linearly independent set onto a linearly independent set.  All I can think of doing: If $\{T(\mathbf{v}_1), \dots ,T(\mathbf{v}_p)\}$ is linearly dependent, then there exist weights $c_1, \dots, c_p$, not all zero, so that $$c_1 T(\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + c_p T(\mathbf{v}_p) = \mathbf{0}$$ Since $T$ is linear: $$c_1 T(\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + c_p T(\mathbf{v}_p) = T(c_1\mathbf{v}_1) + \cdots + T(c_p \mathbf{v}_p)=T(c_1 \mathbf{v}_1 +\cdots + c_p \mathbf{v}_p)=\mathbf{0}$$ So the set $\{\mathbf{v}_1, \dots , \mathbf{v}_p \}$ must be linearly dependent. Am I missing something? And why must $T$ be on-to-one for this to be true? An example showing that it is not true if $T$ is not one-to-one would be great! How do I remove login credentials (emails or OpenIDs) from my account?     For more information, see "" in the . How to prevent different checksums for different typesets I'm trying to change the numbers in problems I write for examples I use in my class as well as assignments. However the problems are still inspired by the textbook. Are the problems sufficiently different from the textbook problems to not have copyright issues? There is also an issue of theorems and definitions. Authors of the calculus textbook certainly did not come up with these things. Is it OK to just copy them down in my lecture notes?  By the way I do share my lecture notes on Piazza and the course I'm teaching is multivariable calculus. I'm just getting started with Pinter's A Book of Abstract Algebra, please be kind. The book solution for Chapter 2, Problem 7 claims that the following operator is non-associative:  $$ x * y = \frac{xy}{x+y+1}$$  The book solution:  $$ (x * y) * z = \left(\frac{xy}{x+y+1}\right) * z = \frac{xyz(x+y+1)}{x+y+z+xy+yz+xz+1}$$  $$ x * (y * z) = x * \left(\frac{yz}{y+z+1}\right) = \frac{xyz(y+z+1)}{x+y+z+xy+yz+xz+1}$$  However the $(x+y+1)$ and $(y+z+1)$ terms appear to actually cancel out:  $$ (x * y) * z = \left(\frac{xy}{x+y+1}\right) * z = \frac{\left(\frac{xy}{x+y+1}\right)z}{\frac{xy}{x+y+1} + z + 1} $$  $$ x * (y * z) = x * \left(\frac{yz}{y+z+1}\right)  =\frac{x\left(\frac{yz}{y+z+1}\right)}{x+\frac{yz}{y+z+1} + 1} $$  So the denominators cancel out, the two groupings are equivalent, the operator is associative.  This result is duplicated in Mathematica, but I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something.  Sorry for bothering people with such a basic question. Re-use aliased field in SQL SELECT statement Is there any difference in equals and == for String variables? if ('text'.equals(str))   or   if ('text' == str)   Is there any difference? If yes, then what is it?   Added, after answered.  String q = 'teXt'; system.debug('teXt'.equals(q)); // true system.debug('teXt' == q);      // true system.debug('text'.equals(q)); // false system.debug('text' == q);      // true Real world uses of hyperbolic trigonometric functions I covered hyperbolic trigonometric functions in a recent maths course. However I was never presented with any reasons as to why (or even if) they are useful.  Is there any good examples of their uses outside academia? An explanation of Hawking Radiation Could someone please provide an explanation for the origin of ? (Ideally someone who I have been speaking with on the h-bar)  Any advanced maths beyond basic calculus will most probably leave me at a loss, though I do not mind a challenge! Please assume little prior knowledge, as over the past few days I have discovered that much of my understanding surrounding the process as virtual particle pairs is completely wrong. Concurrently interleaving execution of Lua and TeX in LuaTeX The usual way to interleave Lua and TeX in generating documents is by invoking Lua from Tex through the \directlua facility and generate Tex from Lua using tex.print().  For example, consider the Plain LuaTeX:  \directlua{     es=""; someluatex = function () tex.everypar="PAR!" end     tex.print("one", es, "two")     someluatex()     tex.print("three", es, "four") } five\bye   Looking at the document LuaTeX generates for that input, we see that someluatex() is run before the Tex backend does anything with the output: the PAR!s will be inserted before "one" and "two", as well as after "three".  Is there best practice for ensuring that TeX code issued by some Lua code is issued before some other LuaTeX code?  There are several ways to do this: with some code I am working with I am trying the following scheme:   Wrap the code executed by the \directlua in a coroutine, call it myco; At the point we want to ensure the Tex so far tex.print-ed is executed, use:  tex.print("\\directlua{coroutine.resume(myco)}") coroutine.yield()  If everything is in order, the Lua will resume after the Tex is processed.   This is not ideal, however: we must ensure that the TeX backend is in the right state to understand the \directlua command, which may not always be the case.  Is there a better way to achieve this? Algebraic closure of $\mathbb F_p$