This is a question about episode 4x16 of Fringe.  This episode, titled "Nothing as It Seems" takes place in the   alternate timeline, after the      return of Peter.   The episode begins with Marshall Bowman on a plane.  The same scene occurs at the star of 1x13 ("The Transformation").  The events on the plane in the new timeline occur differently, in that      Bowman does not transform into a maniacal beast on the plane.   However, the same air hostess attends to Bowman and checks on him while his is in the washroom, and Bowman is seated next to exactly the same elderly passenger, despite a difference of three years.  (The timeline has changed but not the date.)  It seems highly improbable that Peter's absence (the divergent event between the two timelines) should cause Bowman to make his flight (for the same purpose as the original flight) three years later than he did originally, and also highly improbable that three people with no connection to one another should appear again on the same flight (in particular, that Bowman and the same random passenger should be seated next to one another again, three years later).  Is this a plot hole, or is there a genuine in-universe cause for this highly improbable arrangement of events?
In Fringe's season 1, the episode  (1x13) shows how  travels on VertusAir flight 718. We witness how he develops some strange symptoms, withdraws into a lavatory and transforms into a porcupine-like monster.  At the end of season 3, Peter "switches" the timeline (changing the past and making the present continue in a different timeline henceforth) from blue- to orange-verse. Various statements throughout the 4th season indicate time (the date) was not reset; Olivia and Walter have been working on Fringe cases for some three years etc. - hence it is safe to say that season 4 plays 3 years after season 1.  Then, in the episode  (4x16), the events from 1x13 happen again, up to the point of Bowman's transformation, which this time doesn't happen (not aboard the plane, anyway). As far as I can tell, great care was taken to exactly recreate the events from the season 1 episode, including hiring the same actors to play the flight attendants once again ( and ), so obviously this is supposed to be the same event with slight changes.  Peter, as well as Olivia - who is in the process of regaining her memories from the blue-verse -, remember the events from 1x13 and note the difference that Bowman's transformation happened later this time, implying that in the orange-verse, everything related to flight 718 played out the same way, except for the small difference that the transformation happened a bit later.  BUT ... all of this happened 3 years later!! Is there any explanation for this?  How unlikely is it that in the orange-verse timeline, Marshall Bowman is on the very same flight with the very same flight attendants 3 years after the same would have happened in the blue-verse? Mind you, this is not a "small change" in the course of events while mostly everything else stays the same.  So, why did Peter and Olivia realize the transformation happened a tad later in the orange-verse timeline, but were not baffled by the fact that essentially the same events as in the blue-verse happened, but three years later?  EDIT: Not only the flight and the flight attendants were the same in both episodes. The passenger next to Bowman was the same, an elderly lady played by  both times, as well. Moreover, the transcripts of  and  reveal that the dialogue between Bowman, the passenger next to him, and the cabin crew is the same down to the lines of text until the moment of transformation.  Interestingly, the announcement by the captain in the beginning seems to be different - starting the inflight movie + selling headsets vs. circling before beginning the final descent + selling snacks. On the other hand, this could be presumed to be a slight retcon, as in 4x16, it was crucial for the plot that the plane would be close to landing, and starting the inflight movie would not make much sense right before landing.
Lower case "k" in Cocoa I know this is a common convention, but what does the "k" in variable names signify? (i.e. kMaxImageViewSize)  I looked in the Apple documentation on Variable names and found no mention of it.  Thanks for answering How do I write to NTFS drives in OS X? What is the best, easiest, preferably cheapest way to make OS X write to NTFS-formatted drives in Mac OS X? Prove that an infinite ring with finite quotient rings is an integral domain How can we show that if $R$ is an infinite commutative ring and $R/I$ is finite for every nonzero $I \unlhd R$, then $R$ is an integral domain?   I tried proceeding by contradiction: assume $a$,$b$ $\in R \backslash \{0\}$ and $ab=0$; then $R/(a)$ and $R/(b)$ must be finite, say $R/(a)=\{k_i + (a) : 1 \leq i \leq m\}$ and $R/(b)=\{l_j + (b) : 1 \leq j \leq n\}$. Does this mean $R$ must be finite? Or what about using the fact that $R/(a,b)$ finite?  Thanks for any help with this! Problem is to find sum  $$\frac{1}{3!}+\frac{4}{4!}+\frac{9}{5!}\cdots$$  What I knew doesn't apply on this problem  Some series are telescoping, some types are solvable using binomial , both look useless here Binomial gives  $$n (n-1) (n-2)x^3=1$$  $$n (n-1)( n-2)(n-3)x^4=4$$  What approach to use here? Why is the product of all units of a finite field equal to $-1$? Suppose $F=\{0,a_1,\dots,a_{q-1}\}$ is a finite field with $q=p^n$ elements. I'm curious, why is the product of all elements of $F^\ast$ equal to $-1$? I know that $F^\ast$ is cyclic, say generated by $a$. Then the product in question can be written as  $$ a_1\cdots a_{q-1}=1\cdot a\cdot a^2\cdots a^{q-2}=a^{(q-2)(q-1)/2}. $$ However, I'm having trouble jumping from that product to $-1$. What is the key observation to make here? Thanks! Why an abstract class implementing an interface can miss the declaration/implementation of one of the interface's methods? A curious thing happens in Java when you use an abstract class to implement an interface: some of the interface's methods can be completely missing (i.e. neither an abstract declaration or an actual implementation is present), but the compiler does not complain.  For example, given the interface:  public interface IAnything {   void m1();   void m2();   void m3(); }   the following abstract class gets merrily compiled without a warning or an error:  public abstract class AbstractThing implements IAnything {   public void m1() {}   public void m3() {} }   Can you explain why? How to startForeground() without showing notification? How to draw a side line in table How can I install Celestia on Ubuntu 18.04.1? Like the title said, I want to install Celestia. I already downloaded the packages  and then, I tried all the things that I found on some posts (also, they're outdated, cause the last one is for Ubuntu 16.04) but nothing works.  How can I install it on Ubuntu 18.04.1? Is the total energy of the universe zero? Inserting random numbers into a table in MYSQL I find I have to scroll a lot to move the text of my page compared to Windows where I can choose the speed of the mouse wheel.   Does Ubuntu have a similar utility and if so how can I access it? Not to Mention ≈ [Let Alone ≈ Much Less ≈ Still Less] For brevity, I symbolise synonymity with ≈.  So  X ≈ Y  means  X and Y are synonyms.  From : let alone ≈ not to mention  From :  let alone ≈ much less ≈ still less.  Are these all synonyms? What are the similarities and differences between each? I am trying to install php curl like so:  sudo apt-get update sudo apt-get install php5-curl   But I keep getting an error.  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done php5-curl is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Y Setting up runit (2.1.2-3ubuntu1) ... start: Unable to connect to Upstart: Failed to connect to socket /com/ubuntu/upstart: Connection refused dpkg: error processing package runit (--configure):  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of git-daemon-run:  git-daemon-run depends on runit; however:   Package runit is not configured yet.  dpkg: error processing package git-daemon-run (--configure):  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates its a followup error from a previous failure.                           Errors were encountered while processing:  runit  git-daemon-run E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)   when I try sudo dpkg --configure -a I get:  dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of git-daemon-run:  git-daemon-run depends on runit; however:   Package runit is not configured yet.  dpkg: error processing package git-daemon-run (--configure):  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured Errors were encountered while processing:  git-daemon-run   when I try sudo apt-get install --reinstall runit I get:  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. E: Internal Error, No file name for runit:amd64   when I try sudo apt-get install runit I get:  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done runit is already the newest version. 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n] Y Setting up runit (2.1.2-3ubuntu1) ... start: Job is already running: runsvdir dpkg: error processing package runit (--configure):  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of git-daemon-run:  git-daemon-run depends on runit; however:   Package runit is not configured yet.  dpkg: error processing package git-daemon-run (--configure):  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates its a followup error from a previous failure.                                                                                                           Errors were encountered while processing:  runit  git-daemon-run E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)   when I try sudo apt-get install --reinstall git-daemon-run I get:  Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree        Reading state information... Done 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 reinstalled, 0 to remove and 8 not upgraded. 2 not fully installed or removed. After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used. E: Internal Error, No file name for git-daemon-run:amd64   How can I fix this?  System Specs:  Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-3630QM CPU @ 2.40GHz × 8 Graphics: Gallium 0.4 on AMD TURKS (DRM 2.43.0, LLVM 3.6.2) OS Type: Ubuntu 15.10 64-bit Irrationality proofs not by contradiction Per now, I have basically come upon proofs of the irrationality of $\sqrt{2}$ (and so on) and the proof of the irrationality of $e$. However, both proofs were by contradiction.  When thinking about it, it seems like the definition of irrationality itself demands proofs by contradiction. An irrational number is a number that is not a rational number. It seems then that if we were to find direct irrationality proofs, this would rely on some equivalent definition of irrational numbers, not involving rational numbers themselves.   Are there any irrationality proofs not using contradiction? How to replace the first occurence in an expression instead of replacing all? Does the fact that matrices $A, B$ are similar imply that $A+cI$ is similar to $B+cI$? Let $A, B$ be similar $n \times n$ matrices over (say) $\mathbb{R}.$  Is it the case that $A+cI$ is similar to $B+cI$?    Here is an argument (which seems too good to be true...)  Since $A, B$ are similar, they have the same Jordan form. So we can write $PAP^{-1}=QBQ^{-1}=J$ for $P, Q$ invertible matrices.   Hence we have $P(A+cI)P^{-1}=PAP^{-1}+cI= J+cI.$ Similarly, we find $Q(B+cI)Q^{-1}=J+cI.$  Hence $A+cI$ and $B+cI$ are both similar to $J+cI$ and hence similar to each other.   Is this correct? Why not use the Lagrangian, instead of the Hamiltonian, in nonrelativistic QM? Proving a three variables inequality Difference between shadowing and overriding in C#?