![The picture says "To form the possessive of any singular proper noun, add an apostrophe and an S. For example, Venus's beauty Dickens's reputation  But I saw somewhere, Aeschylus' Sophocles' There is no S after apostrophe. Which one is correct?] ()
Many questions already ask about this topic ( , , etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example:      6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants."   Examples they give include Kansas’s, Ross’s land, and Jones’s reputation. Exceptions include Jesus’  and Moses’.  Which names does this apply to?  Is the Aeneas’  form correct, or is it Aeneas’s instead?
The covid19 death data for US shows strong periodic trends. It does not make sense to me that people die periodically.   What could be the reason to having such data? I thought it might be the reporting artifacts, for example, people always update data at Monday, but the period seems to be 3-4 days. How to tell Google to ignore URL parameters and forget about any already crawled? Let $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of real numbers. A well known result is:     The sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$ if and only if every subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$.   Now, I'm working on an exercise which essentialy asks to prove the following:     The sequence $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $a\in \mathbb{R}$ if and only if for every subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ there is a (sub)subsequence $(x_{n_{k_j}})_{j\in \mathbb{N}}$ which converges to $a$.   Now, one direction is trivial. If in fact $(x_n)_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $a$, then by the result I've mentioned, every subsequence of $(x_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ converges to $a$. Let then $(x_{n_k})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ be an arbitrary subsequence. In that case, we know that it is a subsequence of itself, and hence we've found a (sub)subsequence which converges to $a$.  The other way around seems quite complicated for me. The reason is as follows: I must assume that every subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ has a (sub)subsequence which converges to $a$ and the proof that the original one converges to $a$.  My problem is exactly that "a". If it had all (sub)subsequences converging to $a$, then by the result i've mentionted, the subsequence $(x_{n_k})_{k\in \mathbb{N}}$ would converge to $a$. In that case, we would have every subsequence converging to $a$ and the result would follow.  My idea to prove the claim was then:  First remember that a subsequence is the restriction of the original one $x: \mathbb{N}\to \mathbb{R}$ to an infinite subset $\mathbb{N}'\subset \mathbb{N}$. In that case a (sub)subsequence is the restriction of $\tilde{x} = x|\mathbb{N}'$ to an infinite subset $\mathbb{N}''\subset \mathbb{N}$. But since $\tilde{x}$ is the restriction of $x$ to $\mathbb{N}'$ and since $\mathbb{N}''\subset \mathbb{N}'$, the restriction of $\tilde{x}$ to $\mathbb{N}''$ is itself the restriction of $x$ to $\mathbb{N}''$.  In other words, every (sub)subsequence can be viewed as a subsequence of the original one. Considering this, by hypothesis every subsequence has a (sub)subsequence which converges to $a$. But by this argument, this means that we can replace every subsequence with a convergent one. And then we can use the result I stated.  Is my idea correct? Is this really the way to prove the claim? My only doubt is that I need every subsequence converging to $a$ to use the result. In this case I can't see how I can argue that this implies every subsequence converges to $a$.  How can I finish this proof? system wide keyboard hook on X under linux Is it acceptable to take photos of slides at a conferences for private use? Is it accepted/appropriate to take pictures of presentation slides at conferences for private use?   I am not talking about putting those pictures out in the public afterwards, I know this is illegal without consent of the presenter.    Should it matter, I am talking about math conferences.  And I am asking because I don't see anyone taking pictures. How should I calculate $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1^n+2^n+3^n+...+n^n}{n^n}$ How should I calculate the below limit  $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1^n+2^n+3^n+...+n^n}{n^n}$$ I have no idea where to start from. $2+2 = 5$? error in proof $$\begin{align} 2+2 &amp;= 4 - \frac92 +\frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt{\left(4-\frac92\right)^2} +\frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt{16 -2\times4\times\frac92 +\left(\frac92\right)^2} + \frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt{16 -36 + \left(\frac92\right)^2} +\frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt {-20 +\left(\frac92\right)^2} + \frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt{25-45 +\left(\frac92\right)^2} +\frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt {5^2 -2\times5\times\frac92 + \left(\frac92\right) ^2} + \frac92\\ &amp;= \sqrt {\left(5-\frac92\right)^2} +\frac92\\ &amp;= 5 + \frac92 - \frac92 \\ &amp;= 5\end{align}$$  Where did I go wrong Get latest Flash player on Ubuntu I know, it's been asked before but I couldn't really get a satisfying answer for some details/backgrounds and I guess it's an important question for many.    Some application seem only to be running with Adobe Flash 15 (or at least I know it does, because I have that version on my Windows Partition).  The official Adobe website says:     NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux.   Some search on the web like "Ubuntu Adobe Flash 15" or similar does not return any good websites.  I found something that says   (using a "pepper-based version"), and  .   Is it impossible to use this for Firefox too? Would it be a privacy risk?  Are there no alternative projects (I know it's closed source but there are so many so very bright people out there using something similar to wine but just for the plugin....)?  How about the Mac-Version? Shouldn't someone be able to port that one to Linux? Are users notified when their questions are reopened? Do users get notified when their question is reopened? I know there are no notifications , and that makes sense because 1) you assume the user is paying attention to their open, unanswered question, and they'll probably notice it's been put on hold and 2) it follows with the SE policy of (in general) not sending notifications for negative events.  However a reopening is a good thing, and once a question is closed it becomes less likely that the OP will be coming back to check on it often (so they might not notice the reopening otherwise). If there are not reopen notifications, why not? Or can we add them? In course of evolution (possibly), mammary glands became vestigial in male mammals, but became fully developed in females. Is there any plausible explanation for this characteristic? Why did a Dementor try to take Harry's soul in the train? In "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" - when Harry and his friends were travelling to Hogwarts by train, the train stopped in between and Dementors were searching for Sirius Black. Why did one of the Dementors try to take Harry's soul? Show that $\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n^qx^n$ is absolutely convergent, and that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}$ $n^qx^n = 0$ I'm having trouble with proving the following for my math study:  Let $x$ be a real number with $|x| &lt; 1$, and $q$ be a real number. Show that the series $\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n^qx^n$ is absolutely convergent, and that $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}$ $n^qx^n = 0$  I tried this:  $\sum_{n = 1}^\infty n^qx^n$ = $x + 2^q + 3^qx^3 + ...$ $= x(1 + 2^qx + 3^qx^2 + ...)$  So far, I don't know how I have to do this, I tried to apply the root test on this, but for that I would need to compute the lim sup of the series, so I thought that was not correct. Could you explain me how to prove this?  Thanks in advance! Is my paper under review (or similar) for too long and if yes, how should I react? Interpretation of Shapiro-Wilk test I'm pretty new to statistics and I need your help. I have a small sample, as follows:    H4U   0.269   0.357   0.2   0.221   0.275   0.277   0.253   0.127   0.246   I ran the Shapiro-Wilk test using R:    shapiro.test(precisionH4U$H4U)   and I got the following result:   W = 0.9502, p-value = 0.6921   Now, if I assume the significance level at 0.05 than the p-value is larger then alpha (0.6921 > 0.05) and I cannot reject the null hypothesis about the normal distribution, but does it allow me to say that the sample has a normal distribution?  Thanks! How to edit 'etc/hosts' file in non-rooted phone? I'd like to output a list of all installed packages into a text file so that I can review it and bulk-install on another system.  How would I do this? Dark Souls 2 coop/invading problem I was playing Dark Souls II on my pc a lot. After about 200 hours of ingame time I found that I cant summon or invade anybody. I tried new characters and reinstalling but it didn't help. So any tips, and reasons. P.S. I didn't used any cheats. how to get the current chapter name, section name, subsection name, etc? How can one get the current name of the following: Chapter, Section, Subsection(s), frame, label, mdframed? Is it possible to bake dupliverts into one mesh for the BGE? (I have a large ground landscape that I use as the parent to duplicate trees, and the BGE doesn't support most modifiers.) How can wifi penetrate through walls when visible light can't? I did search the question on Physics S.E considering it would be previously asked. I found this  But in this question , the answers are w.r.t to or in comparison with microwaves , their absorption and certain other things. I didn't find a sort of general answer that could be the answer to the question. So the question is - wifi or radio waves  reach us through concrete walls . They also reach us through the ceiling (if some one is using it in the flat above ours ). Even through the air they travel such a lot , bending around corners or doors . Now I would not compare them to microwaves (because I don't want the answer in terms of properties of the material but physics). Visible light which is so much powerful than them can't penetrate black opaque paper leave alone the walls. Same is true for gamma rays (penetration through a very thick wall). So why then radio waves being so very less powerful than light  waves are able to travel through walls? There should be a general concept as to why the radio waves are able to pass through walls but microwaves or light waves cannot ! A linked question is also that sound travels much faster in solids(walls) but is not audible in it though it is in air. After reading @BillN's answer, it would be really helpful if any one could explain it in terms molecular resonance or crystalline structure or electrical conductivity or how does molecular resonance or crystalline structure or electrical conductivity cause this.