e.g.   [14,6] give 3 and 2.4-approximations for the FVS problem.   Also when do you not use numbers from one to ten as worded.   e.g.  The earliest algorithms had an approximation factor of 16, later algorithms improved the approximation factor to ten, 9.5, eight, 6.5 and three respectively.  The cited questions is about why my 2nd question is about the convention and whether or not it applies to a continuous quantity when it takes discrete values  e.g. does the rule apply to continuous variables e.g. The height of the ball is maximized at time 2e, four, 4.4,3, 2\pi, 2.5e, eight, 3e, 3 \pi and nine  and yes [14,6] are references listed in my bibliography I've found numbered bibliographies to be quite common but I'm not sure where it is okay to start the sentence with a citation.
The junction has a stop sign on each of the four entrances.   The junction has a stop sign on each of the 4 entrances.   The first is preferred, for some reason, by many English texts. Why? I haven't seen this phenomenon in other languages.
Redshifting of Light and the expansion of the universe How to adjust the breaking in the bibliography? I am using natbib and agsm for harvard-style referencing. My related code is  \usepackage{natbib} \bibliographystyle{agsm}   Then I am using \citep{} for citations. My problem is that in text I am getting     (Author et al. 2012)   but and I want     (Author et al. 2012)   Does anyone know how to change this and get 'et al' in italics in the text?  I am using TexPad and BibDesk and I have not been able to find the .bst files in Terminal.  I know that it is often correct to have the 'et al.' unitalicised but my university regulations requires italics. Is Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow available for private or internal use? Does everyone see the same Pokémon? I was wondering if everyone sees the same Pokémon on the map. If I catch all the Pokémon around me will others be unable to get any? Significant predictors become non-significant in multiple logistic regression When I analyze my variables in two separate (univariate) logistic regression models, I get the following:  Predictor 1:    B= 1.049,    SE=.352,    Exp(B)=2.85,    95% CI=(1.43, 5.69),    p=.003    Constant:    B=-0.434,    SE=.217,    Exp(B)=0.65,                            p=.046  Predictor 2:    B= 1.379,    SE=.386,    Exp(B)=3.97,    95% CI=(1.86, 8.47),    p&lt;.001    Constant:    B=-0.447,    SE=.205,    Exp(B)=0.64,                            p=.029   but when I enter them into a single multiple logistic regression model, I get:  Predictor 1:    B= 0.556,    SE=.406,    Exp(B)=1.74,    95% CI=(0.79, 3.86),    p=.171 Predictor 2:    B= 1.094,    SE=.436,    Exp(B)=2.99,    95% CI=(1.27, 7.02),    p=.012    Constant:    B=-0.574,    SE=.227,    Exp(B)=0.56,                            p=.012   Both predictors are dichotomous (categorical). I have checked for multicollinearity.  I am not sure if I have given enough info, but I cannot understand why predictor 1 has gone from being significant to non-significant and why the odds ratios are so different in the multiple regression model. Can anyone provide a basic explanation of what is going on? How can I get bash to perform tab-completion for my aliases? I have a bunch of bash completion scripts set up (mostly using bash-it and some manually setup).    I also have a bunch of aliases setup for common tasks like gco for git checkout. Right now I can type git checkout dTab and develop is completed for me but when I type gco dTab it does not complete.    I'm assuming this is because the completion script is completing on git and it fails to see gco.    Is there a way to generically/programmatically get all of my completion scripts to work with my aliases?  Not being able to complete when using the alias kind of defeats the purpose of the alias. Excel VBA code to turn a row with a variable number of columns into fixed-length rows I would like to change this:  Filer   ShareName       IPAddress1    IPpaddres2    IPAddress2    ... ... .... ServerA /share1/tools   192.168.1.52  192.168.1.65  192.168.1.158 ServerA /share/library  192.168.1.65  192.168.1.61  192.168.1.155 ServerB /share/tools    192.168.1.158 192.168.1.159 ServerD /share/misc     192.168.1.7 .. ... ..... .......   To this, in a new worksheet:  Filer   ShareName       IPAddress ServerA /share1/tools   192.168.1.52 ServerA /share1/tools   192.168.1.65 ServerA /share1/tools   192.168.1.158 ServerA /share/library  192.168.1.65  ServerA /share/library  192.168.1.61  ServerA /share/library  192.168.1.155 ServerB ... ... ServerD ... ... .. ... ..... ....... Pending suggested edit message bug I just tried to edit a post on Stack Overflow but when I pressed the 'edit' button it showed me this message on a white page.    I know what the message means but I don't think it is supposed to show up in a white page. So, is this a bug or is it something else? Take the following function:  DataTable go() {     return someTableAdapter.getSomeData(); }   When I set a breakpoint in this function, is there a possibility to inspect the returned value? go() is directly coupled to a datagrid in an .aspx page.  The only way to inspect the returned datatable is to use a temporary variable. However, that's a bit inconvenient. Isn't there another way? $(\mathbb{R}^n,\|\cdot\|_{p})$ is isometrically isomorphic to $(\mathbb{R}^n,\|\cdot\|_{q})$ iff $p=q,$ Showing that $e^x > 1+x$ Does magnetic monopole violate $U(1)$ gauge symmetry? Does a magnetic monopole violate $U(1)$ gauge symmetry? In what sense and why? Insofar as I know, there are at least two types of magnetic monopoles. One is the Dirac monopole while the other is the monopole in Grand Unified Theories (GUT), e.g., 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole.  In the latter case, some non-Abelian gauge theory breaks down to a (compact) $U(1)$ gauge theory wherein monopoles can be observed from a large distance. The monopole field is not from the $U(1)$ degrees of freedom and nothing is singular. On the contrary, Dirac monopole is singular (topological defect?) and we must introduce Dirac string or patches of vector potential $\vec{A}(x)$. Are these no more than artifacts arising when one tries to describe the monopole field within the $U(1)$ gauge theory by assuming $\vec{B}=\nabla\times\vec{A}$? It seems true since two Maxwell's equations that magnetic monopole might affect can be cast in the differential form $\mathrm{d}F=0$ and $F=\mathrm{d}A$ in Minkowski spacetime, from which $U(1)$ gauge invariance manifests for $\mathrm{d}(A+\mathrm{d}\chi)=\mathrm{d}A$.  However, I later noticed two seminal papers on Dirac monopole  &amp; , in which the authors claimed the following   electromagnetism without monopole $\rightarrow$ connection on a trivial $U(1)$ bundle electromagnetism with monopole $\rightarrow$ connection on a nontrivial $U(1)$ bundle And the wave function of an electron around a Dirac monopole should be regarded as a section which is free from discontinuities.   I've no idea about fibre bundle. Anyway I guess $U(1)$ theory does not necessarily expel Dirac monopoles. It has something to do with the topology of some manifold in the theory? Which manifold? Can anyone shed light on this intriguing issue? Thanks in advance. What did Bill do to make Hanzo mad? Let $E$ be measurable and define $f:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $\{x\in E : f(x)>c\}$ is measurable for all $c\in\mathbb{Q}$, is $f$ measurable? Let $E$ be measurable and define $f:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that $\{x\in E : f(x)&gt;c\}$ is measurable for all $c\in\mathbb{Q}$, is $f$ measurable?  There are a number of equivalent definitions for the measurability of a function and the most obvious one would be to show that $\{x\in E : f(x)&gt;c\}$ is measurable for all $c\in\mathbb{R}$.  Thus my strategy has been to consider an arbitrary irrational $y$ and use the density of the rationals in the reals to show that there exists some open set $O$ such that $m^*(O-\{x\in E : f(x)&gt;y\})&lt; \varepsilon$.  I would do this by choosing some rational $q&lt;y$, close enough to $y$, such that the set of values in $E$ which get sent under $f$ to values strictly greater than $q$ and less than or equal to $y$ is small enough.  But that doesn't in general seem possible since I could keep sending intervals of some fixed positive length to smaller and smaller regions just beneath $y$.  However conversely, such a function would not be enough for a counter example, since finding such a function only rules out this strategy, but doesn't necessarily entail non-measurability.  Is there a better definition of the measurability of a set I should use? or does the statement actually not imply measurability?  Thanks. Tag scores are not updated and the issue is getting worse I've been working with Corel Draw previously and now i use Illustrator more.Still getting used to some of their features though. I want to insert an image into a circle I've drawn but i don't know how to go about it.It is called power clipping in Corel. Any answers would be appreciated. Is there a printable version of a reference manual for all TeX primitives? What does recursive cosine sequence converge to? I have a sequence defined as follow:  $a_0 = 1, a_n=\cos\left(a_{n-1}\right)$.  I want to count $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} a_n$ - it definitely does have limit by looking at the graph, the first few numbers of the limit are 0.7390851, but I have no idea, if that number is related to some other real number ($\pi$ or something like that).  The sequence is from , but they don't provide actual result for their own sequence. Setting up LVM Snapshot as a backup/restore point in ubuntu. Why? Well, as I see it, with all the great usefulness of Linux, its biggest drawback is with its mixed up way of installing apps. All the dlls go to one directory. All the configuration files to another. And the binaries are also put in a bunch. Yes, Windows works the same way more or less, but with the nature of system/server software installed on Linux, being that most of the software installed is only about 95% mature at any given time, messing up your system twice a month is very probable.. Of course, we can backup the system before and after each installation, but that takes a million years. System backups (as oppose to just data/files backup) requires you to turn off you computer and use some form of bootable live CD and a backup media. And, if the drive is more than 15% full, it might take a long time to do the backup, even with modern hardware. So, how can this be done?