Don't understand why UnboundLocalError occurs (closure) What am I doing wrong here?  counter = 0  def increment():   counter += 1  increment()   The above code throws an UnboundLocalError.
UnboundLocalError on local variable when reassigned after first use The following code works as expected in both Python 2.5 and 3.0:  a, b, c = (1, 2, 3)  print(a, b, c)  def test():     print(a)     print(b)     print(c)    # (A)     #c+=1       # (B) test()   However, when I uncomment line (B), I get an UnboundLocalError: 'c' not assigned at line (A). The values of a and b are printed correctly. This has me completely baffled for two reasons:   Why is there a runtime error thrown at line (A) because of a later statement on line (B)? Why are variables a and b printed as expected, while c raises an error?   The only explanation I can come up with is that a local variable c is created by the assignment c+=1, which takes precedent over the "global" variable c even before the local variable is created. Of course, it doesn't make sense for a variable to "steal" scope before it exists.  Could someone please explain this behavior?
Does it look good to edit the question you're answering? I have a question about editing practices:  Does it look good to edit a question you have just answered?  For example: say I had just answered a question, then saw that the question had some minor formatting issues. Should I edit it? Does it turn up voters off when they see that I am answering a question I changed, possibly to better suit my answer? Is JavaScript's "new" keyword considered harmful? In another , a user pointed out that the new keyword was dangerous to use and proposed a solution to object creation that did not use new. I didn't believe that was true, mostly because I've used Prototype, Scriptaculous and other excellent JavaScript libraries, and everyone of them used the new keyword.  In spite of that, yesterday I was watching Douglas Crockford's talk at YUI theater and he said the exactly same thing, that he didn't use the new keyword anymore in his code ().  Is it 'bad' to use the new keyword? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using it? Let $(G,.)$ be a group and $m,n \in\mathbb Z$ such that $\gcd(m,n)=1$. Assume that $$ \forall a,b \in G, \,a^mb^m=b^ma^m,$$ $$\forall a,b \in G, \, a^nb^n=b^na^n.$$  Then how prove $G$ is an abelian group?  Some context: Some of these commutation relations often imply that $G$ is abelian, for example , or . This looks like another example of this phenomenon, but the same techniques do not apply. Given two sets$$A=\{1,3,5\}\quad,\quad B=\{1,3,8\}.$$ Then I compute the $A\setminus B=\{5\}.$   But my book$^\dagger$said: ... . Also, observe that $x\notin A\setminus B$ does not mean that $x\notin A\lor x\in B$. Why?  I don't know how to explain the Why, please give me some example.    $^\dagger$, second edition, page $4$.  EDIT: My intuition tells me that it does mean that. I guess there is some special case about null-set or about the restriction of the universal set. By the time, many files are still on my system and I don't need them anymore, so how to delete all files that are one year old at least? Can "Wow!" be a sentence? The question is clear. Can "Wow!" be a sentence?  Imagine a hypothetical context where I'd utter something like this:     Wow! What an amazing idea! I should think about a way to push this fix.   We see "wow" in casual speech often. It bears punctuation marks (typically an exclamation mark, denoting the rising intonation) and a capital letter &mdash; just like all "regular" sentences.  On the other hand, neither Wow! nor What an amazing idea! contain any verbs. These certainly don't have any parts of speech in the other sentence, so what are they? Are they sentences or clauses? In other words, can "Wow!" be a sentence despite its lack of [any implied] verbs, and subsequently lack of any distinguishable predicates?  Please back up your answers with references. How Do I Opt Out of Privileges? According to  , gold badge holders can now unilaterally close questions as duplicates. I hold seven gold badges for tags on SO, which means I can, on my own, close questions as duplicates for those tagged questions.  Simply put: DO NOT WANT.  However, I do not see any ability in SO (the only SE site I spend much time in) to opt out of any privileges, let alone this one.  Is there a spot that I'm just not seeing that allows me to turn off this new privilege? Here there is my proof (quite short and easy) of a rather straightforward result. The text of this question comes from a previous question of mine, where I ended up working on a wrong inequality. Here things are fixed. Still, I would like to know:  if it is sound, because absolute value always creates me some problem, and if there is a shorter (neater) way to get the result (maybe without using contradiction).    Proposition: $|d(x,y)-d(y,z)| \leq d(x,z)$. Proof: We proceed by cases.  Case 1: $d(x,y)-d(y,z) \geq 0$. Assume by contradiction that $d(x,y)-d(y,z) &gt; d(x,z)$. Hence, $d(x,y)&gt; d(y,z) + d(x,z)$, contradicting the triangle inequality.  Case 2: $d(x,y)-d(y,z) &lt; 0$. Assume by contradiction that $ - d(x,y) + d(y,z) &gt; d(x,z)$. Hence, $d(x,y) &lt; d(y,z) - d(x,z)$. By applying the triangle inequality, we have that $d(y,x) \geq d(y,z) + d(x,z)$, which is by symmetry equivalent to  $d(x,y) \geq d(y,z) + d(x,z)$, obtaining the desired contradiction. $\square$     As always, any feedback is welcome. Thank you for your time. The specified DSN contains an architecture mismatch Error Example of quasi-compact, non-quasi seperated scheme where qcqs fails? Why are new sites classified as "uncategorized"? says:  Note that there is one axiom for every such predicate φ; thus, this is an axiom schema. To understand this axiom schema, note that the set B must be a subset of A. Thus, what the axiom schema is really saying is that, given a set A and a predicate P, we can find a subset B of A whose members are precisely the members of A that satisfy P. By the axiom of extensionality this set is unique  (Emphasis added) My question is why, by the axiom of extensionality, is this set unique? The Axiom of Extensionality is about set equality; what is the relation between the Axiom of Extensionality with uniqueness of this set? Python mechanize javascript How to use more than 10 tab stops in bmatrix or other amsmath matrix environments? How to interpret these acf and pacf plots In the  question one of the answers had the following code snippet:  IEnumerable&lt;object&gt; FilteredList() {     foreach(object item in FullList)     {         if(IsItemInPartialList(item))             yield return item;     } }   What does the yield keyword do there?  I've seen it referenced in a couple places, and one other question, but I haven't quite figured out what it actually does.  I'm used to thinking of yield in the sense of one thread yielding to another, but that doesn't seem relevant here. remote action function encountering CPU time out limit exception CPU time out limit was being hit while processing child records on the inline opportunity visualforce page, to handle this i wrote a remoteActionFunction on the page that invokes controller method that's taking long to process and when i get CPU LIMIT exception in the result, i am invoking javascript call back function that invokes a action function which handles the same code asynchronously(@future).  Question: by setting the timeout (Visualforce.remoting.timeout = 120000;) can't we overcome CPU TIME out limit of 10,000 ms. At the start of the movie it says:      "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...."   Does this mean that the entire Star Wars saga takes place in a single galaxy? To my understanding a galaxy isn't very big compared to the universe itself. Star Wars has many different sentient races, and the way they are presented suggests that most planets are host to only one of them (some exceptions like naboo). This strongly leads me to believe there should actually be more galaxies in the Star Wars universe (hehe).   Another thing, I think it's safe to assume that even if the entire saga takes place in one single galaxy, their researchers can observe other galaxies (I think we started doing that in the 1600s, and they are a lot more technologically advanced than we were back then). When Obi-wan is looking for Kamino (the rain planet with the cloners) the librarian says something like "If it's not in our records, it doesn't exist", so she must be convinced that the entire universe has been explored.    If the entire universe has been documented, why wouldn't they go to those other galaxies? The technology seems to be advanced enough to hop to another galaxy. Is there any canon material that suggest that traveling between galaxies is done? If not, is there a canon explanation why they don't? Show an exponential function has a valid density. Given:  Let $X$ be exponential with parameter $\lambda$, that is   $$ f_X(x) = \begin{cases} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} &amp; \text{if }x&gt; 0, \\ 0 &amp;\text{for }x\leq 0. \end{cases} $$  where $\lambda&gt;0$ is called the rate of the distribution.  Question:  Show that this is a valid probability density function (pdf).  Attempt:  Need to show that  $$ f(x) = \int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \lambda e^{-\lambda x}\,  dx=1\\\\ $$ Thus, \begin{eqnarray*} f(x)&amp;=&amp;\int^0_{-\infty} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} \, dx+\int^\infty_0 \lambda e^{-\lambda x} \,  dx\\[8pt] &amp;=&amp;0+\int^\infty_0 \lambda e^{-\lambda x} \, dx \\[8pt] &amp;=&amp;\lambda\int^\infty_0 e^{-\lambda x} \, dx \\[8pt] &amp;=&amp;1 \end{eqnarray*}  The problem is that my professor just told me that I skip a step right before I derive $1$. Any insight?  EDIT:  Given the great feedback, here is the answer:  \begin{eqnarray*} f(x)&amp;=&amp;\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} dx=1\\\\ f(x)&amp;=&amp;\int^{\infty}_{-\infty} f_X(x)dx\\ &amp;=&amp;\int^{0}_{-\infty} 0\,\,\, dx+\int^{\infty}_{0} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} dx\\ &amp;=&amp;0+\int^{\infty}_{0} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} dx\\ &amp;=&amp;\int^{\infty}_{0} \lambda e^{-\lambda x} dx\\ &amp;=&amp;\int^{\infty}_{0} e^{-\lambda x} \Big(\lambda \,\,\,dx\Big)\\ &amp;=&amp;\int^\infty_0e^{-u} du\\ &amp;=&amp;-e^{-u}\Big|^{\infty}_0\\ &amp;=&amp;1-\lim _{x \to \infty} e^{-u}\\ &amp;=&amp;1\\ \end{eqnarray*} Calculate relative time in C# Given a specific DateTime value, how do I display relative time, like:   2 hours ago 3 days ago a month ago