Let $X$ be a completely regular Hausdorff space. Such a space is also known as , or a $T_{3.5}$-space. Furthermore, let's assume that $X$ is not compact. Question. Does $X$ admit a continuous function $f: X\to \mathbb{R}$ with unbounded image? Context. It is known that if $X$ is a non-compact metric space, then $X$ admits an unbounded continuous real-valued function. This was discussed thoroughly in . Note that the same conclusion holds if $X$ is a non-compact normal space (also known as $T_4$-space).  This is because the proof using Tietze extension theorem (see the answer in the linked MSE thread by the user Espace' etale) still works. This is the motivation for asking the current question. In general, Tietze extension theorem fails for $T_{3.5}$-spaces (for example, consider ), so one cannot apply the trick above; of course, it is possible that the question has a negative answer, in which case I'd love to see a counter-example.
It is well known that compactness implies pseudocompactness; this follows from . I know that the converse does not hold, but what is a counterexample?  (A  is a topological space $S = \langle X,{\mathfrak I}\rangle$ such that every continuous function $f:S\to\Bbb R$ has bounded range.)
Humanity meeting another similar intelligent life form deep into space (or not)? I'm looking for a plot line (it should be a short story) that depicts Earth population (or their close descendants) establishing contact with another intelligent life form deep into space.   After careful studying of DNA samples and language / communication symbols they then realize that the civilization in question is also from Earth but that they departed very long ago and travelled throughout the galaxy in the completely opposite direction so that they are now meeting practically at the point of the circle opposite to Earth. There might have been some anatomical differences as well.  As far as I can remember, the story concludes shortly after that.  This should be a work of a well-known SF author, so I'm hoping for a quick response (if time didn't corrupt my memory too much).  I don't think it was part of an anthology, but it's entirely possible it was in a magazine.  As for the timeline, I've read it about 2-3 years ago, but since I have a passion for older SF works it might not be of much use.  Edit: Not sure if this could help but for what it's worth, it might be contained in . $(n+1)$th prime $p_{n+1}$ less than or equal to $p_1p_2\dots p_n+1$ Has anyone used PostgreSQL with PostGIS successfully?   I am a semi-experienced ArcGIS user and want to build out a database and connect it to ArcCatalog.   I've scoured the internet for resources but nobody has really given a good walkthrough. I am teaching myself information about groups, but don't really understand how to work through this problem. Here is what I have been thinking so far (please note that I do not need to work through showing any closure): $\mathbb{Z}^*$ denotes the nonzero integers. Prove or disprove: $(\mathbb{Z}^*, \cdot)$ and/or $(\mathbb{Z}^*, \div)$ is a group.  For $(\mathbb{Z}^*, \cdot)$:  Group. Associative Law: Let $a,b,c \in \mathbb{Z}^*$. Then $(a\cdot b)\cdot c=a\cdot (b \cdot c)$, and the associative law holds. Existence of Identity: Let $a \in \mathbb{Z}^*$, then $a \cdot 1 = 1 \cdot a = a$, and the identity holds. Existence of Inverses: Let $a \in \mathbb{Z}^*$. Then the inverse of $a^{-1}=-a$, and the inverse holds. Note that this only works because we are ommitting zero.  Hopefully this looks like I am on the right track. I don't know to what extent I can explain logic vs showing it with mathematical operations, so I would appreciate guidance in this respect.  For $(\mathbb{Z}^*, \div)$: Not a group. Disprove by counterexample.  Yeah, I dunno about this one. I don't think it's true, because we will be introduction rational expressions that won't allow this to hold, but I'm not sure where I can use this information to disprove the statement. Prove that $f'(a)=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}f'(x)$. Let $f$ be a real-valued function continuous on $[a,b]$ and differentiable on $(a,b)$. Suppose that $\lim_{x\rightarrow a}f'(x)$ exists. Then, prove that $f$ is differentiable at $a$ and $f'(a)=\lim_{x\rightarrow a}f'(x)$.    It seems like an easy example, but a little bit tricky. I'm not sure which theorems should be used in here.    ==============================================================  Using @David Mitra's advice and @Pete L. Clark's notes I tried to solve this proof. I want to know my proof is correct or not.  By MVT, for $h&gt;0$ and $c_h \in (a,a+h)$ $$\frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}=f'(c_h)$$ and $\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}c_h=a$.    Then $$\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}\frac{f(a+h)-f(a)}{h}=\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}f'(c_h)=\lim_{h \rightarrow 0^+}f'(a)$$   But that's enough? I think I should show something more, but don't know what it is. How can I create my own Action using Photoshop? Can anyone guide me with a simple example? Where in the world is tikzlibraryhobby.code.tex? I was trying to reproduce Claudio Fiandrino's answer to .  However, I do not have the hobby package by Andrew Stacey in my local distribution.  After reading  and , I looked at the latest  (build on December 7, 2012) but could not located the hobby package in it.  I found  but do not know where each file is supposed to go in my distribution.  How do I add the hobby package? In general, what would be the easy way to get any new TikZ package installed in a Mac?  EDIT:  I have used the drag-and-drop (mac) method as described below.  (1) Drag pml3array.sty file to /Users/Username/Library/texmf/tex/latex folder. (2) Drag hobby.code.tex file to /Users/Username/Library/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/math folder. (3) Drag pgflibraryfpu.code.tex to /Users/Username/Library/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/libraries folder. (4) Drag tikzlibraryhobby.code.tex to /Users/Username/Library/texmf/tex/generic/pgf/frontendlayer/tikz/libraries folder.  I no longer get the hobby cannot be found error message.  But, is this correct? "...his parents' dream of *him* achieving a Cambridge degree." What is the function of "him" here? I have a problem analysing this sentence from the point of finite/nonfinite clauses, clause elements and their functions:     He does not want to destroy his parents' dream of him achieving a Cambridge degree.   I am especially interested in the: dream of him achieving a Cambridge degree.  I know that 'achieving a Cambridge degree' is a non-finite -ing participle clause. However what is its function? And what is the function of 'of him'? Is it a postmodification? Why do Oreo crumbs float to a single glob at the very center in a glass of milk? I had Oreos and milk a while ago and left my half-full cup of milk out on the counter. Afterwards I noticed that the crumbs had surfaced in a circular coin-sized glob, and just now I looked again to see all of the crumbs seem to have compressed into a more dense glob at the very center of the cup.   Why does this happen? Why doesn't hydrogen gas exist in Earth's atmosphere? What is the relation between computational security and provable security? I read the book "Introduction modern cryptography". It gives the notion of computational security of private-key encryption at first which comes from perfect security and statistical security.     Let $(E,D)$ be an encryption scheme that uses $n$-bits keys to encrypt $l(n)$-length messages. $(E,D)$ is computationally secure if    $$E_{U_{n}}(x_{0}) \approx E_{U_{n}}(x_1)$$   And then it introduces the secure game (e.g. CPA, CCA)? I think it is a part of provable security.  "Unconditional security" (or "information-theoretic security" or "perfectly secrecy") and "computational security" are two opposite classes of security. But I do not think "computational security" and "provable security" are two independent classes of security. I know that computational security emphasizes the power of attacker is bounded (polynomial-time algorithm). And the provable emphasizes the mathematical assumptions or cryptography primitives. But it also related to the computational power. In classical statistics, there is a definition that a statistic $T$ of a set of data $y_1, \ldots, y_n$ is defined to be complete for a parameter $\theta$ it is impossible to form an unbiased estimator of $0$ from it nontrivially. That is, the only way to have $E h(T (y )) = 0$ for all $\theta$ is to have $h$ be $0$ almost surely.   Is there a intuition behind this? Is seems like a rather mechanical way of defining this, I am aware this has been asked before, but was wondering if there was a very easy to understand intuition that would make introductory students have an easier time digesting the material. A well-known application of the MVT is to prove that any $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ with $f'= 0$ is constant. But of course, the MVT relies fundamentally on the properties of $\mathbb{R}$, and in particular does not hold in $\mathbb{Q}$. A standard counter-example is the function $f :\mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}$ defined by $ f(x)=0 $ if $ x &lt;\sqrt{2}$, and $f(x)=1$ if $ x &gt; \sqrt{2}$, for this function is locally constant. There are several ways of thinking about the difference between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ : $\mathbb{R}$ is connected while $\mathbb{Q}$ is totally disconnected, closed bounded intervals are compact in $\mathbb{R}$, but not in $\mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{R}$ satisfies the least upper bound axiom, $\mathbb{Q}$ does not.   Now, I wanted to see how far one could push this counterexample - is there a function $f :\mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}$ such that $f'=0$ and $f$ is strictly increasing? Clearly, any slight modification of the usual counterexample where $f$ is locally constant will not do. Also, one can show that if $f$ is uniformly differentiable with derivative zero, it must be constant, even in $\mathbb{Q}$, so I knew I was looking for non-uniformly differentiable but still differentiable $f$.   Eventually, I came up with a construction, albeit not a very explicit one: the idea is that, since $\mathbb{Q}$ is countable, one can enumerate it $q_{1}, q_{2}, q_{3}, \cdots$, and then define $f: \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}$ inductively and recursively. If one could define $f$ in such a way that $ \forall \ q_{n} \in \mathbb{Q} \ \exists \ c_{n} \in \mathbb{Q} : \forall \ x \in \mathbb{Q} \ |f(x)-f(q_{n})| \leq c_{n}|x-q_{n}|^2$, and $f$ is strictly increasing, we would be done. The recursive definition essentially defines $f(q_{n+1})$, after having defined $f(q_{1}),f(q_{2}),f(q_{3}), \cdots , f(q_{n})$, in such a way that these inequalities hold and $f$ is strictly increasing, and at each step the new $c_{n}$ is chosen large enough so that these inequalities do not become incompatible at subsequent steps ( I am willing to provide more details of this construction if asked).  Note that, as $n \to \infty$, we must have $c_{n} \to \infty$, so that $f$ is not uniformly differentiable. Interestingly, the only key fact about $\mathbb{Q}$ used in the construction is that it is countable, so in a sense the construction provides a proof that $\mathbb{R}$ is uncountable, given the MVT.  While the construction works, it is not very simple nor explicit, which is perhaps to be expected, and the function must be evaluated point by point in the order given by the enumeration of $\mathbb{Q}$. So I was wondering if anyone else knows or can come up with a simpler construction of a function $ f : \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q}$ such that $f'=0$ and $f$ is strictly increasing. Any thoughts and ideas are welcome.  Edit: I've asked the same question on MO: Supernatural sites on Stack Exchange Is there any Q&amp;A site under the Stack Exchange network where we can discuss about supernatural incidents? If not, then whom should I petition to create it? When to choose checked and unchecked exceptions In Java (or any other language with checked exceptions), when creating your own exception class, how do you decide whether it should be checked or unchecked?  My instinct is to say that a checked exception would be called for in cases where the caller might be able to recover in some productive way, where as an unchecked exception would be more for unrecoverable cases, but I'd be interested in other's thoughts. get values from ANY type Object How do I address unchecked cast warnings? Eclipse is giving me a warning of the following form:     Type safety: Unchecked cast from Object to HashMap   This is from a call to an API that I have no control over which returns Object:  HashMap&lt;String, String&gt; getItems(javax.servlet.http.HttpSession session) {   HashMap&lt;String, String&gt; theHash = (HashMap&lt;String, String&gt;)session.getAttribute("attributeKey");   return theHash; }   I'd like to avoid Eclipse warnings, if possible, since theoretically they indicate at least a potential code problem.  I haven't found a good way to eliminate this one yet, though.  I can extract the single line involved out to a method by itself and add @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") to that method, thus limiting the impact of having a block of code where I ignore warnings.  Any better options?  I don't want to turn these warnings off in Eclipse.  Before I came to the code, it was simpler, but still provoked warnings:  HashMap getItems(javax.servlet.http.HttpSession session) {   HashMap theHash = (HashMap)session.getAttribute("attributeKey");   return theHash; }   Problem was elsewhere when you tried to use the hash you'd get warnings:  HashMap items = getItems(session); items.put("this", "that");  Type safety: The method put(Object, Object) belongs to the raw type HashMap.  References to generic type HashMap&lt;K,V&gt; should be parameterized. I am looking for either an online tool or one that I can download to convert DD to DMS.  For example, I want to convert from:  41.590833, -93.620833 to 41° 35′ 27″ N, 93° 37′ 15″ W ...  Those are the coordinates, according to , for Des Moines. Show that $g\circ f\equiv 0$ implies $\det Df\equiv 0$, where $g(x_1,...,x_n)=x_1^5+...+x_n^5$ Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be a smooth function and let $g:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be defined by $g(x_1,...,x_n)=x_1^5+...+x_n^5$. Suppose $g\circ f\equiv 0$. Show that $\det Df\equiv 0$.  I was going to start the solution from $n=2$ and then use induction on $n$.  So, for $n=2$, $f:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ is a smooth function and $g:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ where $g(x_1,x_2)=x_1^5+x_2^5$. Then $Df=\begin{pmatrix}   f_{x_1x_1} &amp; f_{x_1x_2}  \\   f_{x_2x_1} &amp; f_{x_2x_2}   \end{pmatrix}$  But now I am stuck in proving the result. Am I in the correct track? Can anyone plese give me a hint to continue?  Ok so since $g\circ f$ is $0$, the image of $f$ is the line $x_1+x_2=0$ which has no min, max or saddle.   If det$Df(x_0)&gt;0$ and $f_{x_1x_1}(x_0)&gt;0$ OR det$Df(x_0)&gt;0$ and $f_{x_1x_1}(x_0)&lt;0$, we have contradiction.   But if det$Df(x_0)&gt;0$ and $f_{x_1x_1}(x_0)=0$, then det$Df(x_0)=0$ or, det$Df(x_0)&lt;0$(Since $f_{x_1x_2}=f_{x_2x_1}$). So this is impossible.  If det$Df(x_0)&lt;0$ we have saddle and it is impossible.   So finally we conclude that det$Df(x)=0$ for all $x$. Am I correct? Has the Magical Community breached the Final Frontier? (aka Wizards in Space?) Have they? Given that Muggles put the first man in space in 1961, even by 1991 a lot of Muggleborns perfectly aware of the space-travel would have passed through Hogwarts and into the Ministry, even the Department of Mysteries (which seems to be a bit like their research division/Area 51 combo) And even leaving Muggle technology (which Wizards don't care for or about) aside, Humans have wondered about air travel to &quot;other worlds&quot; and meeting aliens from the time of the Ancient Greeks, surely some Witch or Wizard somewhere might have wondered if it really was possible to fly to the moon? So, is there any canon (aka Books + Pottermore + Rowling interviews) evidence of the Wizarding community having ever travelled or trying to travel to space / other planets or satellites? ETA: Note, I am also totally okay (and in fact would be eager for) historical &quot;Famous Wizard&quot; card-like tidbits from canon-sources.  AWESOME example (that I'm frankly not expecting): When the Muggles managed to land on the Moon, the Department of Mysteries had to scramble to hide the Silver-backed Moon Dragon conservatory they had been maintaining near the landing site. ALSO AWESOME example (that I am hoping for): Warlock Flibberti and Witch Tigget misused this earth-based spell and amusingly found themselves on the moon with their pet monkey instead!