If you trigger Tree of Perdition's ability, then give the tree -13/-13, does the player go to 0 life? If you activate 's ability, "Exchange target opponent's life total with Tree of Perdition's toughness", then play a spell before the ability resolves that brings the tree's toughness to 0, does the opponent's life total become 0?
Can a well-timed Twisted Image kill a player using Tree of Redemption? What happens if my opponent activates  and I cast  with the life-exchange ability on the stack?  Looking at the comp rules, these seem most relevant:     701.8a A spell or ability may instruct players to exchange something (for example, life totals or    control of two permanents) as part of   its resolution. When such a spell or ability resolves, if the   entire exchange can’t be completed, no part of the exchange occurs.      Example: If a spell attempts to exchange control of two target creatures but one of those              creatures is destroyed before the spell resolves, the spell does nothing to the other              creature.      112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source.    Destruction or removal of the source   after that time won’t affect the ability. Note that some    abilities   cause a source to do something (for example, “Prodigal Sorcerer deals   1 damage to    target creature or player”) rather than the ability   doing anything directly. In these cases, any    activated or triggered   ability that references information about the source because the   effect    needs to be divided checks that information when the ability   is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it    will check that information   when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the   zone it’s expected to be in at that time, its last known information   is used. The source can still    perform the action even though it no   longer exists.   Is the entire exchange ability countered because the Tree is dead by the time it resolves? Or do we use the "last known state" (toughness 0), thereby killing its controller?
"States Party to" or "State Parties to" or "States parties to"? When discussing a treaty or international agreement, which is correct?  "There are 100 states party to the treaty." (for example, as used )  Or:  "There are 100 state parties to the treaty." (for example, as used )   Or: "There are 100 states parties to the treaty."  (for example, as used ) I've recently come across several statements to the effect "there are questions science can't answer", mostly from proponents of  and , but also from  and  as well.   However it seemed to me that there was an inherent contradiction in statements of the type "Science doesn't have all the answers" or "Science can't answer all questions". This is hinged on what is meant by "answering a question". It seems to me that to answer any significant question is to provide 2 things:    An accurate and objective explanation of the current state of affairs, in terms of relationships, causes and effects.  Based on that explanation, a method for making decisions if one is faced with future scenarios similar to or related to the current state of affairs, and for predicting future states of affairs with a certain amount probability, i.e the explanation is useful for future purposes.   But then if a field of inquiry is able to provide accurate, objective and useful information regarding a question, doesn't that field simply become part of science?   As examples:    If some school of mysticism is demonstrated to truly improve the happiness and well being of it's practitioners, then wouldn't that school's mystical teachings simply be incorporated into mainstream psychology and psychotherapy?  Similarly, if a political ideology is proven to provide better economic conditions and less crime, less pollution, etc...then this ideology's principles would become an accepted part of social sciences?     To put it more simply: Science has all the answers, because science IS anything that can provide objective and useful answers to a question.  Am I not talking about the demarcation problem per-se (at I least I think I am not), because even disciplines which are agreed upon as failing various demarcation criteria (such as astrology or intelligent design) are still trying (and failing) to be scientific in the sense I mentioned above. If they did start to provide answers, science would have to take them into account. Moreover, various philosophical schools of ethics are trying to be scientific in their explanatory framework, they are just not able to provide verifiable and falsifiable statements to prove their precepts (and probably would do so if possible).   My questions then are:    Per those who claim that science can't answer all questions, what type of question are they talking about? Do they have a demarcation criteria for such questions? (I'm not asking for examples, there are already plenty in the links I posted above).  If a field starts providing objective, accurate answers, doesn't it just become a subfield of science?   Is there a second demarcation problem between "carckpot" pseudosciences (such as astrology or numerology) which are providing the wrong answers and legitimate fields of inquiry (such as political theory or ethics) which are trying to provide answers but so far have failed to provide verifiable and falsifiable statements or accurate predictions? How should I phrase an important question that I need to ask a professor? How diodes protect H-bridge DC motor driver? I don't really understand how these diodes in this circuit and similar circuits (like driving a relay circuit) protects the controller circuit from the energy stored by the inductance of the coil. I really appreciate if someone could graphically explain it. ( I mean how the the diodes block the current and etc)  the second question about this circuit is the capacitor. what happens if it isn't there? How do Stack Overflow questions appear in Google search results in seconds? Possible Duplicate:          I have noticed that when I ask a question on Stack Overflow and I go into Google and search for the question, it comes up in Google in just a minute or so.  How do they do this? I want the secret!  I am a web developer and I know about most things that you can do for SEO, but I have no idea how these questions appear in Google this quickly!  I think it's amazing! Creating image with specific latitude/longitude positions using GDAL? I have an ASCII file with latitude, longitude, and data_val in the following format.  35-13.643782N, 080-57.190157W, 118.6 ...   I have a GeoTiff image file, and I can easily view it.  I want to place a "pin" (can be a dot/flag/star or whatever is easiest) on the image at the specific latitude/longitude position found in the ASCII file.  Here is what I've managed to do so far:  My source image looks like this:  Driver: GTiff/GeoTIFF Files: /tmp/Charlotte SEC 100.tif Size is 16867, 12358 Coordinate System is: PROJCS["Lambert Conformal Conic",     GEOGCS["NAD83",         DATUM["North_American_Datum_1983",             SPHEROID["GRS 1980",6378137,298.2572221010042,                 AUTHORITY["EPSG","7019"]],             AUTHORITY["EPSG","6269"]],         PRIMEM["Greenwich",0],         UNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],         AUTHORITY["EPSG","4269"]],     PROJECTION["Lambert_Conformal_Conic_2SP"],     PARAMETER["standard_parallel_1",38.66666666666666],     PARAMETER["standard_parallel_2",33.33333333333334],     PARAMETER["latitude_of_origin",34.11666666666667],     PARAMETER["central_meridian",-78.75],     PARAMETER["false_easting",0],     PARAMETER["false_northing",0],     UNIT["metre",1,         AUTHORITY["EPSG","9001"]]] Origin = (-365041.822331817995291,240536.419747152860509) Pixel Size = (42.334586069440391,-42.334898968590878) Metadata:   AREA_OR_POINT=Area   TIFFTAG_DATETIME=2016:06:24 12:46:45   TIFFTAG_RESOLUTIONUNIT=2 (pixels/inch)   TIFFTAG_SOFTWARE=Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows   TIFFTAG_XRESOLUTION=300   TIFFTAG_YRESOLUTION=300 Image Structure Metadata:   COMPRESSION=LZW   INTERLEAVE=BAND Corner Coordinates: Upper Left  ( -365041.822,  240536.420) ( 82d48'55.43"W, 36d13' 4.92"N) Lower Left  ( -365041.822, -282638.262) ( 82d35'10.11"W, 31d30'17.00"N) Upper Right (  349015.641,  240536.420) ( 74d51'46.40"W, 36d13'26.16"N) Lower Right (  349015.641, -282638.262) ( 75d 4'55.60"W, 31d30'36.99"N) Center      (   -8013.091,  -21050.921) ( 78d50'12.11"W, 33d55'36.35"N) Band 1 Block=16867x1 Type=Byte, ColorInterp=Palette   Color Table (RGB with 256 entries)     0: 255,255,255,255 ...   Here is what I've managed to cobble together in Python:  from osgeo import gdal, osr  src_filename = '/tmp/Charlotte SEC 100.tif' dst_filename = '/tmp/foo.tiff'  # Opens source dataset src_ds = gdal.Open(src_filename) format = "GTiff" driver = gdal.GetDriverByName(format)  # Open destination dataset dst_ds = driver.CreateCopy(dst_filename, src_ds, 0)  # Specify raster location through geotransform array # (upperleftx, scalex, skewx, upperlefty, skewy, scaley) # Scale = size of one pixel in units of raster projection # this example below assumes 100x100 gt = [-365041.822, 100, 0, 240536.420, 0, -100]  # Set location dst_ds.SetGeoTransform(gt)  # Get raster projection epsg = 4269            # http://spatialreference.org/ref/sr-org/lambert_conformal_conic_2sp/ srs = osr.SpatialReference() srs.ImportFromEPSG(epsg) dest_wkt = srs.ExportToWkt()  # Set projection dst_ds.SetProjection(dest_wkt)  # Close files dst_ds = None src_ds = None   But, I can't quite figure out how to place a "red dot" at 35-13.643782N, 080-57.190157W  I'm having to learn some new details here (nomenclature about GIS). Is normal extension of normal extension always normal? How to add numbering to reference list but still use authoryear in natbib Is there an easy way to add numbers to the reference list generated by \usepackage[authoryear]{natbib} with whatever style file (using plainnat for ease)? Specifically, I use \cite and \citenum from natbib in order to have some references show up in the text as author-year and others just appear as numbers. Switching authoryear out for numbers in the natbib options generates a reference list with numbered references, but also causes the references in the text to all appear as numbers, which I don't want.  \documentclass[12pt]{article} % use larger type; default would be 10pt \usepackage[authoryear]{natbib} \begin{document}  \cite{A} said this, but other research \citenum{B,C} says otherwise.  \bibliographystyle{plainnat} \bibliography{MalariaBib,MST} \end{document} Mathematical expression to form a vector from diagonal elements I would like to know is there any way to express mathematically (using matrices multiplication, addition, etc.) a vector which is formed from the diagonal elements of a matrix. For example, I have a matrix called $\mathbf{M}$ and I want to create a vector  $\mathbf{v}$ such that $\mathbf{v}= \text{diagonal elements of } \mathbf{M} $  Any matrix algebra or operation do that ? Thank you. When is tension constant in a rope? Consider a massless rope with pulling forces applied at each end.  How do we decide if tension is constant or not in a rope? Consider a few example scenarios:  For example, if there is a knot in the rope the tension is not constant throughout (why?. Similarly, if the rope is hung over a cylindrical pulley of a non-negligible radius, the tension is not constant (why?). If there isn't anything touching the rope, for example, 2 people tugging on the rope at each end, the tension is constant (why?). Dragging files into blender Where did the "wheel" group get its name? The wheel group on *nix computers typically refers to the group with some sort of root-like access. I've heard that on some *nixes it's the group of users with the right to run su, but on Linux that seems to be anyone (although you need the root password, naturally). On Linux distributions I've used it seems to be the group that by default has the right to use sudo; there's an entry in sudoers for them:  %wheel ALL=(ALL) ALL     But that's all tangential; my actual question is: Why is this group called wheel? I've heard miscellaneous explanations for it before, but don't know if any of them are correct. Does anyone know the actual history of the term? Centre of Lie Algebra $sl_2(\mathbb{F})$ For $L=sl_2(\mathbb{F})$ i.e. matrices with trace zero,  what is the centre i.e. $Z(L)$= {$x\in L : [x,y]=[y,x] \ \forall\ y \in L$}.  I will have to find matrices $A \in L$ such that $AB=BA$ for all $B \in L$. But how to appoach this considering trace is zero here. Confidence interval for the p-value estimate when doing Monte Carlo testing The second paragraph of the  section of the Wikipedia article on resampling statistics, the values of a confidence interval for a p-value from a MC sampling is given:     After $N$ random permutations, it is possible to obtain a confidence interval for the p-value based on the Binomial distribution. For example, if after $N = 10000$ random permutations the p-value is estimated to be $\hat{p}=0.05$, then a 99% confidence interval for the true $p$ (the one that would result from trying all possible permutations) is $[0.044, 0.056]$.   What's the formula to calculate it? How many "super imaginary" numbers are there? How many "super imaginary" numbers are there? Numbers like $i$? I always wanted to come up with a number like $i$ but it seemed like it was impossible, until I thought about the relation of $i$ and rotation, but what about hyperbolic rotation? Like we have a complex number $$ z = a + bi $$ can describe a matrix $$ \begin{bmatrix} a &amp; -b \\ b &amp; a\end{bmatrix} $$ You can "discover" $i$ by doing (which is used for another discovery) $$ \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} c &amp; -d \\ d &amp; c\end{bmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} ac - bd \\ ad + bc \end{pmatrix} $$ $$ (a + bi) \cdot (c + di) = ac + adi + bci + bdi^2 $$ From here on you can infer that $ i^2 = -1 $.  So what if we do the same thing, but a different matrix? $$ z = a + bh$$ can describe a matrix $$ \begin{bmatrix} a &amp; b \\ b &amp; a\end{bmatrix} $$ and we can discover it the same way $$ \begin{pmatrix} a \\ b \end{pmatrix} \cdot \begin{bmatrix} c &amp; d \\ d &amp; c\end{bmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} ac + bd \\ ad + bc \end{pmatrix} $$ $$ (a + bh) \cdot (c + dh) = ac + adh + bch + bdh^2 $$ From here we infer that $ h^2 = 1 $.  Also $$ e^x = 1 + \frac{x}{1!} + \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^3}{3!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} + \frac{x^5}{5!} + \cdots  $$ $$ \begin{align} e^{xh} &amp; = 1 + \frac{xh}{1!} + \frac{(xh)^2}{2!} + \frac{(xh)^3}{3!} + \frac{(xh)^4}{4!} + \frac{(xh)^5}{5!} + \cdots \\ &amp; = 1 + \frac{xh}{1!} + \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{x^3h}{3!} + \frac{x^4}{4!} + \frac{x^5h}{5!} + \cdots \\ &amp; = \cosh{x} + h \cdot \sinh{x} \end{align} $$  How many more numbers like this are there? And does that mean that for each set of trigonometric functions there exists a number which can turn multiplication into a rotation using those trigonometric functions?  (Sorry if I got some things wrong) Why is the \bf command applied to more than I asked? MWE:  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{bm}  \begin{document} $$x(t), \bf{x}(t), \bf{x(t)}$$ \end{document}   Result:    Question:  Why are the second and third x(t) typeset the same? In the second  expression, it was asked to apply \bf to only x.  EDIT:  I had not payed attention to it when asking the question, but I would like to have a bold and italic x. I'm stuck underground.   I can't mine any further to reach lava. There is no water nearby, and zombies can't reach me.  I can't see to find any blocks to suffocate my character.  NBTEdit and similar programs don't work on Mac, so I can't edit my save file to escape. I have hardly any blocks so cannot jump and lay my way up. I can't see, and do not have any torches, so can't make a staircase back up. I don't want to make new save as I have an awesome house filled with stuff that took me ages to find.    How can I get back to the surface? Why is this true?  $(\exists x)(P(x) \Rightarrow (\forall y) P(y))$ Terminology of the sequences of promoters in relation to DNA strands I'm studying molecular biology and I'm trying to understand an experiment which shows the importance of promoters in the relative transcription level (RT). The image below comes from Rolf Knippers' book "Molekulare Genetik" (8th edition).    The legend says (among other things):     Die erste Zeile gibt die normale "Wildtyp"-Sequenz der 5'-flankierenden Region wieder.   Which, in english, means something like:     The first line repeats the normal wild-type sequence of the 5' flanking region.   The column on the right gives the relative transcription (RT) level, 1.0 being the highest possible level of transcription. As we can see, the lines where some parts of the "5' region" have been deleted give quite low RT levels, since some regions of the promoter are missing.  My questions are the following:  1) According to  and , I understand that RNA polymerase reads and uses both coding and non-coding strands in order to synthesize RNA. Therefore, how did they manage to use the sequences strands regions had been deleted to make a polymerase "read them" and perform transcription?  2) If the polymerase reads the template strand in the 3' -> 5' sense, shouldn't we talk of "ATAT box" or "TAAC box" instead of "TATA" or "CAAT" boxes? Does it mean that the "promoter" regions they are using on the graphic above are actually on the coding strand?  Thanks a lot for your help. "Pupil" or "Student", what is the correct use?