My table is choosing not to stay in the example environment I created for it, however the text I placed in there are included. I notice that when I remove the table environment and let tabular remain, then I see my diagrams within the example environment, however they are together with the words. I need to use the table so I can have labels. I have also tried figure as well and it does not work.   \documentclass[14pt,oneside,reqno]{amsart}   \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}  \usepackage[table]{xcolor}   %----- let figure stay in position -------- \usepackage{float} %usepackage{caption}  % to design diagram \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{automata,positioning}  \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}  \renewcommand{\qedsymbol}{$\blacksquare$}  \newcommand{\quotes}[1]{``#1''}  \theoremstyle{definition} \newtheorem{definition}{Definition} \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section] \newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}[theorem] \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma} \newtheorem{exmp}{Example}[section]  % END PREAMBLE  % BEGIN DOCUMENT  \begin{document}  \begin{exmp} industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.  %begin table-------------------------&gt; \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}   \hline  a &amp; b &amp; a &amp; a &amp; b &amp; \cellcolor{green!25}x &amp; . &amp; . &amp; . \\   \hline \end{tabular} \caption{S} \label{P1} \end{table} %end table-------------------------&gt;  %begin table-------------------------&gt; \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| c| }   \hline  a &amp; b &amp; a &amp; a &amp; b &amp; \cellcolor{green!25}a &amp;  &amp;  &amp; \\   \hline \end{tabular} \caption{P2} \label{P2} \end{table} %end table-------------------------&gt;  %begin table-------------------------&gt; \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{ |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c| }   \hline  a &amp; b &amp; \cellcolor{blue!25}a &amp; \cellcolor{blue!25}a &amp; \cellcolor{blue!25}b &amp; \cellcolor{blue!25}a &amp;  &amp;  &amp; \\   \hline \end{tabular} \caption{P3} \label{P3} \end{table} %\end table---------------------------&gt; industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. \end{exmp}  \end{document}
Is there any package or a method to force LaTeX to keep floating environments like table and figure closer to where they are declared?
I can understand this requirement for the old PPC RISC systems and even for x86-64, but for the old tried-and-true x86? In this case, the stack needs to be aligned on 4 byte boundaries only. Yes, some of the MMX/SSE instructions require 16byte alignments, but if that is a requirement of the callee, then it should ensure the alignments are correct. Why burden every caller with this extra requirement? This can actually cause some drops in performance because every call-site must manage this requirement. Am I missing something? Update: After some more investigation into this and some consultation with some internal colleagues, I have some theories about this:  Consistency between the PPC, x86, and x64 version of the OS It seems that the GCC codegen now consistently does a sub esp,xxx and then &quot;mov&quot;s the data onto the stack rather than simply doing a &quot;push&quot; instruction. This could actually be faster on some hardware. While this does complicate the call sites a little, there is very little extra overhead when using the default &quot;cdecl&quot; convention where the caller cleans up the stack.  The issue I have with the last item, is that for calling conventions that rely on the callee cleaning the stack, the above requirements really &quot;uglifies&quot; the codegen. For instance, what some compiler decided to implement a faster register-based calling style for its own internal use (ie any code that isn't intended to be called from other languages or sources)? This stack-alignment thing could negate some of the performance gains achieved by passing some parameters in registers. Update: So far the only real answers have been consistency, but to me that's a bit too easy of an answer. I have well over 20 years experience with the x86 architecture and if consistency, not performance, or something else concrete, is really the reason then I respectfully suggest that is a bit naive for the developers to require it. They're ignoring nearly three decades of tools and support. Especially if they're expecting tools vendors to quickly and easily adapt their tools for their platform (maybe not... it is Apple...) without having to jump through several seemingly unnecessary hoops. I'll give this topic another day or so then close it... Related 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. javascript not working, working on fiddle but not on my webserver Proving that two vector spaces of equal dimension are isomorphic Given the following problem     Let $U$ and $V$ be finite dimensional vector spaces, such that $\dim(U) = \dim(V)$. Prove that $U$ and $V$ are isomorphic.   I was just wondering if somebody could critique and validate my proof.  Proof  Two vector spaces $U$ and $V$ are isomorphic if and only if there exists a bijection $\phi: U \to V$. That is, an invertible linear map between the two. Let $\dim(U) = \dim(V) = n$ and let $\left\{u_1, \dots, u_n\right\}$ and $\left\{v_1, \dots, v_n\right\}$ be bases for $U$ and $V$, respectively. It follows that any vector $u \in U$ can be written as  $$ u = c_1u_1 + \cdots + c_nu_n $$  We define $\phi: U \to V$ as  $$ \phi(c_1u_1 + \cdots + c_nu_n) = c_1v_1 + \cdots + c_nv_n $$  Observe that $\phi$ is invertible. That is, given a vector  $$ v = d_1v_1 + \cdots + d_nv_n $$  in $V$, we define $\phi^{-1}: V \to U$ as  $$ \phi^{-1}(d_1v_1 + \cdots + d_nv_n) = d_1u_1 + \cdots + d_nu_n $$  Since there exists a bijection between $U$ and $V$, they are isomorphic. As the topic is there exist a homeomorphism between either pair of $(0, 1),(0,1],[0,1]$ Is every metric space a subspace of some connected metric space? How do you debug through a compressed JavaScript file? Using some matlab (I know it's cheating) I found that: $$k=0 =&gt; Result=1$$ $$k=1 =&gt; Result=1$$ $$k=2 =&gt; Result=2$$ $$k=3 =&gt; Result=5$$ $$k=4 =&gt; Result=15$$ $$k=5 =&gt; Result=52$$ $$k=6 =&gt; Result=203$$  This sequence is puzzling... Sort a Map by values Why won't Amanita move in and settle down? Okay the scenario I'm thinking of is as follows:   I control a ,  and 3 untapped lands (2 swamps, 1 Island to be perdantic). In my opponents turn he casts a burn spell to kill my duskmantle.   I activate his first ability in response.   The way I am hoping the following interactions will go is:   Duskmantles ability will hit the stack at the top and resolve The burn spell resolves dealing its damage to Duskmantle The burn spell card hits the graveyard and triggers the infinite loop for duskmantle and mindcrank killing my opponent Duskmantle perishes   Is this the way that the stack would pan out? Do I win in this situation regardless of the stack being correct or not above? (I am not fully familiar with how the stack really works in magic) You can see the cards from my deck . If a drive doesn't know about partitions and files systems why moving a file from one partition to another takes relatively long time, unlike the instantaneous move on the same partition? Is that file system inefficiency? In this case, NTFS. It seems like the file is being copied and then original is erased, instead of removing the entry about that file in one partition and making it in another? Can I still command/control concentration spells while in the Border Ethereal? If I have cast something like Animated Objects or Bigby's Hand and then follow up the next round with casting Etherealness, can I still command/control those spells? When to comment or answer Showing that $\int_0^\infty x^{-x} \mathrm{d}x \leq 2$. Here is a simple table.  I want to merge 4 cells. I want to combine the three "this" cells area in this table. I thought I have to use multirow and multicolum at same time. However, I could not find how to use it.  If possible, could you post the modified LaTeX source code?     My LaTeX code:  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{multirow}% http://ctan.org/pkg/multirow \usepackage{hhline}% http://ctan.org/pkg/hhline \begin{document}  \begin{table}[ph] \begin{center} \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Raaa (k)} &amp; \multicolumn{4}{c}{C ()} \\ \hhline{~----}  &amp; 3.3 &amp; 2.5 &amp; 1 &amp; 0.5 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Raaa (k)} &amp; \multirow{2}{*}{this} &amp; this &amp; 0.5 &amp; 0.6\\ \hhline{~~~--}            &amp;                       &amp; this &amp; 0.7 &amp; 1.2 \\ \hline \end{tabular} \caption{R, C ripple size} \label{T:peak} \end{center} \end{table} \end{document} Checking for null before event dispatching... thread safe? Blender Internal glossy BSDF equivalent? Lock your computer after 5 minutes of inactivity What are the similarities/differences between the behaviors of Quantum particles and bouncing droplets?