I recently acquired a shapefile that when added in ArcMap 10.2, the software says it has an unknown spatial reference system. The X and Y coordinates are both 6 digit coordinates (for example, 712568.799, 257083.471).  I would like to be helped on how to convert these coordinates to Arc 1950 UTM Zone 36s which is a system used in Malawi. If the Y coordinate had 8 in front it could have worked perfectly but this is not the case.
I have a Shapefile but its coordinate system is Unknown, and there is no *.prj file.   How can I identify it now?
What software can join videos? What's the best &amp; easiest GUI software that can join a video that I have downloaded in several parts? Can git be integrated with Xcode? Test the series whose general term is: $$\sqrt{n^2 + 1} - n$$   This is from Higher Algebra by Henry Sinclair. I'm struggling to understand how this series is divergent. If you do the following expansion: $$\sqrt{n^2 + 1} - n$$ $$= n\biggl(1 + \frac{1}{n^2}\biggr)^\frac{1}{2} - n$$ $$= n + \frac{1}{2n} - \frac{1}{8n^3} + ... - n$$ $$= \frac{1}{2n} - \frac{1}{8n^3} + ... $$  The remaining series appears to converge to zero as $n$ approaches infinity.  Their explanation is similar to mine, but at the end they say that the above series approaches $\frac{1}{2n}$. From there they directly say that the series is divergent. Earlier in the chapter, it's proved that the expansion of $(1 + x)^n$ is convergent for $x &lt; 1$. In this case, $\frac{1}{n^2} &lt; 1$ as $n$ approaches infinity, so I would assume that the series converges.  The solution to the problem is given  (number 17)  Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Sharing Test code in Maven Do the integral forms of Maxwell's Equations have limited applicability because of retardation? In the usual bookwork treatment, it is easy to show that the differential and integral forms of Maxwell's equations are equivalent using Gauss's and Stokes's theorems. I have always thought that neither version is more fundamental than the other and each has its place in solving problems. (See also  )  But: I have a conceptual problem with applying the integral forms of these equations in cases where there is time-dependence and the "size" of the loop or area means there is a significant light travel time across the regions considered compared with the timescale on which fields vary.  e.g. Suppose there is a time-varying current in a wire $I(t)$ and I wish to find the fields a long way from the wire. My first instinct is that this ought to be solved using the inhomogeneous wave equations to give A- and V-fields that are dependent on the retarded time - hence leading to the E- and B-fields.  But what about using Ampere's law in integral form? What is the limit of its validity? If we write $$ \oint \vec{B}(r,t)\cdot d\vec{l} = \mu_0 I(t) + \mu_0 \int \epsilon_0 \frac{\partial \vec{E}(r,t)}{\partial t} \cdot d\vec{A}$$ then presumably the $t$ that is defined on each side of the equation cannot be the same, since a change in $I$ at time $t$, presumably leads to a change in $B(r)$ at a time $t + r/c$? I suppose one does not care about this so long as the timescale for a current change is $\gg r/c$.  So my question is: Are the integral forms of Maxwell's equations inherently limited by this approximation, or is there a way of formulating them so that they take account of the finite size of a region in cases where the fields are time-variable? What are the prerequisites for studying mathematical logic? I am looking to study mathematical logic, however, I find that introductory books are very daunting, which kind of disheartens me. You see, slowly but surely, I started to realize that the maths which I have learned did not just pop out of thin air, but is a collection of systems, which must of been developed via some other system, i.e, maths did not develop itself.  So I began to look into the origins of mathematics, and read that it was developed via a type of logic, which exists sort of by 'default', via a set of axioms, and then of course I looked up the definition of axioms.   So given that I'd be studying a type of logic whose origins are self evident axioms, naturally I believed there would be no prerequisites. However, in looking up mathematical logic, I have come across things such as Boolean algebra, sets, first order logic, some other type of logic, called 'traditional logic', as well as references to a sort of calculus, though not in a mathematical sense, I think.  So all in all, I am trying to develop a type of mental spider web, and I am trying to find out the strands which lye at the absolute bounds so that I may learn this mystique logic. Though I have no idea where to start.  Side note: This is the book I have started reading:   Credit goes to Wolfgang Rautenberg. Diagram Software I study computing on an advanced level and I need a program that will make it easier to create flowcharts and other diagrams efficiently. I don't need too many features; I just want something that works! I'm aware that there are many website that do exactly what I need but most of the times when I need to draw diagrams I don't have access to the internet I am trying to find a book (young adult) where the devil is the protaganist, and other gods appear as characters I believe it was written by a teenager, and might have a sequel.   It has been many years since I read it, but I believe it had the devil acting like a regular human. He wasn't evil. I think it incorporated a lot of (gods/characters) norse, roman, Christian, and pagan. How to show that the monomials are not a Schauder basis for $C[0,1]$ why the monomials are not a Schauder basis for $C[0,1]$?  $p_n(x)=x^n$ such that $(p_n)$ does not form a Schauder basis for $C[0,1]$  span$\lbrace p_n : n\ge 0\rbrace$ is dense in $C[0,1]$ by Weierstrass approxmation theorem, but I cannot figure out why they are not a Schauder basis.  Could you please explain Can any one help? I purchased a solar powered PIR security light, with the intention of putting it inside my kitchen window. The PIR would be inside the window, but this does not work.  When I go outside to activate the light, it does not work. When I go inside to run my hand across the sensor, it works.  Will a PIR unit penetrate glass, or am I barking up the wrong tree? How can I change the default "ens33" network device to old "eth0" on Fedora 19? Sci-fi book, blue critters than only some people can see, kids fight the critters as they feed off energy and are a threat Simple prime number generator in Python Kinematics with non constant acceleration A particle experiences an acceleration described by  $$ a=kx^{-2} $$ where x is the displacement from the origin and k is an arbitrary constant.  To what value does the velocity v of the particle converge to as x approaches infinity if the particle starts at some point x0?  If I approach this problem with energy, then $$ W = \int F \mathrm{d}x $$ $$  = \int_{x_0}^\infty mkx^{-2} \mathrm{d}x $$ $$  = mk(-\infty^{-1}+{x_0}^{-1}) $$ $$ W = K = mk{x_0}^{-1} $$ $$ \frac{1}{2}mv^2 = mk{x_0}^{-1} $$ $$ v = \sqrt{2k{x_0}^{-1}} $$  How would I solve this problem with pure kinematics? (there appears to be some sort of cyclical dependency where acceleration affects velocity, velocity affects displacement, and displacement affects acceleration)  Likewise, two particles experience accelerations described by $$ a_1=k_1x^{-2} $$ $$and $$ $$ a_2=-k_2x^{-2} $$ where x is the distance between the two particles  What two velocities do the particles reach as x approaches infinity if the two particles are initially separated by some x0? Difference in meaning and use of future perfect forms Tikz, Tree without overlaps permission reporting on sudoers I'm looking for a good, consistent and easy way to do a report of sudoers permissions for every user and group on the system. For users, I want the report to include permissions granted via group membership. How do electrons jump orbitals? My question isn't how they receive the energy to jump, but why.  When someone views an element's emission spectrum, we see a line spectrum which proves that they don't exist outside of their orbitals (else we would see a continuous spectrum).  Electrons can be released in the form of beta decay, thus proving that they are capable of traveling outside of orbitals contrary to the statement my teacher said that they stay within orbitals. Then, to add to the confusion, the older model of rings floating around a nucleus has, from what I can tell, been outdated, which would support this model. My teacher's explanation was that the electrons made a quantum jump of some kind. How do electrons move between orbitals or do we know how they jump, excluding the reason that energy causes them to jump, and why are positrons formed sometimes instead of electrons in Beta decay?  When I'm asking "how do electrons jump" I would like to know how an electron can jump between each orbital such as how it moves and how it knows where to jump since it appears to be a jump where the electron doesn't slow into a orbital position. Specifically how they jump what is this Atomic electron transition, I understand that they jump and that they do this through absorbing and releasing energy but what is this Atomic electron transition other than what is already on the wikipedia article . A question about causality and Quantum Field Theory from improper Lorentz transformation Related post   In Peskin and Schroeder's QFT p28, the authors tried to show causality is preserved in scalar field theory.  Consider commutator $$ [ \phi(x), \phi(y) ] = D(x-y) - D(y-x) \tag{2.53} $$ where $D(x-y)$ is the two-point correlation function,  $$D(x-y):= \langle 0 | \phi(x) \phi(y) | 0 \rangle  = \int \frac{d^3 p}{ (2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{ 2E_{\mathbf{p}}} e^{-ip(x-y)}\tag{2.50}$$  P&amp;S argued that each term in the right-hand-side of (2.53) is Lorentz invariant, since $$\int \frac{d^3p }{ (2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2E_{\mathbf{p}}} = \int \frac{ d^4 p }{ (2\pi)^4} (2\pi) \delta(p^2-m^2)|_{p^0&gt;0} \tag{2.40}$$ is Lorentz invariant.  Since there exists a continuous Lorentz transformation in the spacelike interval $(x-y)^2&lt;0 $ such that $(x-y) \rightarrow - (x-y) $ and $D(y-x)=D(x-y)$, (2.53) equals zero in the spacelike interval. In timelike interval, since such continuous Lorentz transformation does not exist, (2.53) is non-zero in general.  My question is, consider a non-continuous Lorentz transmation in the timelike interval, $PT$, namely time reversal times parity transformation. I can also let  $(x-y) \rightarrow - (x-y) $. Why (2.53) in the timelike interval is non-zero?  I guess $PT$ will let (2.40) go to $p^0&lt;0$ branch. But I am not sure if it breaks the Lorentz invariant of (2.40) and (2.50). When I run sudo, what exactly happens to my environment?  When I run sudo command, it doesn't seem to see my or root's environment. For example, my path for both includes /usr/local/bin, but if I try to run one of the program's without the full path, it fails.  I thought sudo ran as root, and hence got root`s environment. Is there a different way that bash executes under sudo than under root or my normal user?  EDIT:  I have been using sudo -i lately, but recently it has been causing problems because my current working directory gets set to /root. This is as expected (sorta), but I still don't understand why sudo isn't recognizing my executables in /usr/local/bin.  EDIT:  I am running Fedora 15.