I can easily catch click event of a checkbox as shown below:  &lt;input type="checkbox" id="checkbox1" /&gt;  $('#checkbox1').change(function () {     if (this.checked) {         //Do stuff     } });   On the other hand, I create a checkbox on callback of AJAX (in jQuery DataTable) as HTML and click event of the same element cannot be catched:   //... "ajaxSource": "/Student/GetStudents", "fnServerData": function (sSource, aoData, fnCallback) {     aoData.push({ "name": "all", "value": all });     $.getJSON(sSource, aoData, function (json) {         fnCallback(json);         $("div.toolbar").html('&lt;input type="checkbox" id="checkbox1" /&gt; Get all records');     }); },   What is the most suitable method to get the checkbox value in the HTML string?
I have a bit of code where I am looping through all the select boxes on a page and binding a .hover event to them to do a bit of twiddling with their width on mouse on/off.  This happens on page ready and works just fine.  The problem I have is that any select boxes I add via Ajax or DOM after the initial loop won't have the event bound.  I have found this plugin (), but before I add another 5k to my pages with a plugin, I want to see if anyone knows a way to do this, either with jQuery directly or by another option.
I wonder about the foundations of set theory and my question can be stated in some related forms:   If we base Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory on first order logic, does that mean first order logic is not allowed to contain the notion of sets? The axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory seem to already expect the notion of a set to be defined. Is there are pre-definition of what we are dealing with? And where? In set theory, if a function is defined as a set using tuples, why or how does first order logic and the axioms of Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory contain parameter dependend properties $\psi(u_1,u_2,q,...)$, which basically are functions? I have a Dirichlet distribution from which I'm maximizing $\alpha$ by calculating the log likelihood with the following equation  $p\left(s|\alpha\right) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^O\log\left(\frac{n_i!}{\prod\limits_{j=1}^kn_{ij}!}\frac{\Gamma\left(\alpha_0\right)}{\Gamma\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^k\left(n_{ij}+a_j\right)\right)} \prod\limits_{j=1}^k \frac{\Gamma\left(n_{ij}+\alpha_j\right)}{\Gamma\left(\alpha_j\right)}\right)$  I have a python script to calculate the log likelihood. It works for small values, but when $n_{ij}$ gets high $\Gamma\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^k\left(n_{ij}+a_j\right)\right)$ and $\Gamma\left(n_{ij}+\alpha_j\right)$ python runs into overflow error (the max for math.gamma is between 171 and 172).   Is there a way to change the likelihood function so that $\Gamma\left(\sum\limits_{j=1}^k\left(n_{ij}+a_j\right)\right)$ and $\Gamma\left(n_{ij}+\alpha_j\right)$ don't run into overflow errors. Can I just divide the values in $\Gamma$ by for example 100, if I then compare the likelihood between $p(s|\alpha)$ with different $\alpha$ values do the best $\alpha$ values still have the highest likelihood? how to read xml file from url using php How to evaluate this trigonometric limit? I have been struggling to solve this limit.  What is the limit as $x$ approaches $45^0$ of $$\frac{\sqrt{2}\cos x-1}{\cot x-1}?$$   I know how to use L'Hospital's rule to calculate this limit and got the answer as $0.5$. But, how do I calculate the limit by manipulating the function? Please provide only some hints to proceed. what is the area of the region [ (x,y):0<x , y<1 , 3/4<x+y<3/2 ]? Why was the universe in an extraordinarily low-entropy state right after the big bang? Let me start by saying that I have no scientific background whatsoever. I am very interested in science though and I'm currently enjoying Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos. I'm at chapter 7 and so far I understand most of general ideas he has talked about. Or at least, I think I understand them :-)  There is however one part, at the end of chapter 6 that I can't grasp.  It is about entropy and the state of the universe a few minutes after the big bang.  On page 171 he says:     Our most refined theories of the origin of the universe -our most refined cosmological theories- tell us that by the time the universe was a couple of minutes old, it was filled with a nearly uniform hot gas composed of roughly 75 percent hydrogen, 23 percent helium, and small amounts of deuterium and lithium. The essential point is that this gas filling the universe had extraordinarily low entropy.   And on page 173-174:     We have now come to the place where the buck finally stops. The ultimate source of order, of low entropy, must be the big bang itself. In its earliest moments, rather than being filled with gargantuan containers of entropy such as black holes, as we would expect from probabilistic considerations, for some reason the nascent universe was filled with a hot,   uniform, gaseous mixture of hydrogen and helium. Although this configuration has high entropy when densities are so low that we can ignore gravity, the situation is otherwise when gravity can't be ignored; then, such a uniform gas has extremely low entropy. In comparison with black holes, the diffuse, nearly uniform gas was in an extraordinarily low-entropy state.   In the first part of the chapter Brian Greene explains the concept of entropy with tossing the 693 pages of War and Peace in the air.  At first, the pages are ordered. The specific order they are in make sense and are required to recognize the pages as a readable book called War and Peace. This is low entropy. It is very highly ordered and there is no chaos.  Now, when you throw the pages in the air, let them fall and then pick them up one by one and put them on top of each other, the chances you get the exact same order as the initial state are extremely small. The chance you get another order (no matter what order, just not the one from the beginning) is extremely big. When the pages are in the wrong order, there is high entropy and a high amount of chaos. The pages are not ordered and when they are not ordered you would not notice the difference between one unordered state and another one.  However, should you swap two pages in the ordered, low entropy version, you would notice the difference.  So I understand low entropy as a highly ordered state with low chaos in which a reordering of the elements would be noticeable.  I hope I'm still correct here :-)  Now, what I don't understand is how a uniform mixture of hydrogen and helium can by highly ordered? I'd say you wouldn't notice it if some particles traded places. I'd say that a uniform mixture is actually in a state of high entropy because you wouldn't notice it if you swapped some hydrogen atoms.  Brian Greene explains this would indeed be the case when gravity plays no important role, but that things change when gravity does play a role; and in the universe right after the big bang, gravity plays a big role.  Is that because a reordering of the particles would change the effects of gravity? Or is there something else that I'm missing here? Do opposite categories always exist? Is it possible to terminate a running thread without setting/checking any flags/semaphores/etc.? Why do players enter with children on the ground? I have seen many soccer matches. I often see that players enter the field with children. Why do they enter with the children? How to properly indent PHP/HTML mixed code? How to add \part only to TOC? I have always taken these kinds of things for granted. Well of course $a(b+c)=ab+ac$! But why? The thought randomly popped in my head, and I realized that I could not prove it.  Perhaps we should take some time to prove these "obvious" things. I feel like if I cannot prove it, then I do not fully understand it. I would really like a proof of this most basic law, because I have been pondering over it for quite a while. Thanks!  Edit: This proof is for real numbers. How to make the simple three square box and connect them? I want to make the three square box and simply connect them. How to normalize data to 0-1 range? I am lost in normalizing, could anyone guide me please.  I have a minimum and maximum values, say -23.89 and 7.54990767, respectively.  If I get a value of 5.6878 how can I scale this value on a scale of 0 to 1. Inverse of Heine–Cantor theorem I am a beginning indie developer, and I want to get the word out about my game. What sites can I go to to ask about reviews of my game, and where might I be able to talk about and get feedback on my game from players? Cardinality of quotient ring $\mathbb{Z_6}[X]/(2X+4)$ An integral domain $A$ is exactly the intersection of the localisations of $A$ at each maximal ideal This result appears to be ubiquitous as an algebra exercise. How do you prove this result?     Let $A$ be an integral domain with field of fractions $K$, and let $A_{\mathfrak{m}}$ denote the localisation of $A$ at a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ considered as a subring of $K$. Prove that $$A = \bigcap_{\mathfrak{m}} A_{\mathfrak{m}}\,,$$ where the intersection is taken over all maximal ideals $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A$. How to implement Enums in Ruby? Finitely generated projective module