UK family visit visa refused for Indian citizen mother-in-law I have applied for a visit visa for my mother-in-law to spend spending the Christmas holidays with us. However, it was rejected. In filling out the application, there are two columns, one for how much the applicant is willing to spend on the visit, and the other for much the sponsor will spend. I think I made a mistake and put in £3,000 for the first and £5,000 for the second. Can I correct my mistake and reapply?  From the rejection notice:     VISA APPLIED: CHENNAI, INDIA   VISA FOR : UK- VISIT VISA (FAMILY VISIT)      On your visa application form you state that you are unemployed with no income stated. You state that the cost to you personally of your trip is 3000£, you state that the total amount you spent each month is 50£. You have submitted a copy of STATE BANK OF INDIA account showing a balance of INR 118444 (1437 £) as at 13-10-2016, therefore the balance is less than you state that you have available.      Refusal reason:      Therefore I am not satisfied that your purpose in the UK is as you have stated and on the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that you intend to leave the UK at the end of your visit as stated by you - and do not intend to live for extended periods in United Kingdom through frequent or successive visits or that you genuinely seeking entry as a visitor for a period not exceeding 6 months. Furthermore I am not satisfied you will have sufficient funds to cover all reasonable costs in relation to your visit without working or accessing public funds V4.2 (a-e)      Future Applications:      Any future UK visa applications you make will be considered on their individual merits, however you are likely to be refused unless the circumstances of your application change.
Should I submit bank statements when applying for a UK Visa? What do they say about me? The UK Visas and Immigration Directorate publishes  that provides helpful tips that can result in successful visa applications. Section 2 of this guidance opens is entitled &quot;other documents you may want to provide&quot; (emphasis mine).  Section 2: other documents you may want to provide – all visitors This section provides guidance on the types of documents that you may want to provide to help us consider your application against the Immigration Rules. Previous travel documents/passports, which show previous travel. Financial documents showing that you have sufficient funds available.  These must clearly show that you have access to the funds, such as:  bank statements building society book proof of earnings such as a letter from employer confirming employment details (start date of employment, salary, role, company contact details) where a third party (who is either in the UK or will be legally in the UK at the time of your visit) is providing financial support to you e.g. a business, a friend or a relative, documents to show that they have sufficient resources to support you in addition to themselves and any dependant family should be provided   The first item is &quot;bank statements&quot; and this ties in with the , which says...  evidence that you can support yourself during your trip, eg bank statements or payslips from the last 6 months  (Note 'eg' is a Latin abbreviation meaning &quot;for example&quot;; this appears to be optional rather than a fixed requirement.) Question: How should someone interpret this such that the chances of success are maximized? How many statements should I submit? What are they looking for and what do my bank statements tell about me?
Can anyone help me with this problem?     Let $f:[0,\infty)\longrightarrow \mathbb R$ be a continuous function such that for each $x&gt;0$, we have $\lim_{n\to \infty}f(nx)=0$. Then prove that $\lim_{x\to \infty}f(x)=0$.   Our teacher told first to prove Baire's theorem, and then show that this is a consequence of that theorem. I proved Baire's theorem, and I spend a few hours thinking on how Baire's theorem is related to this problem, but I couldn't find anything. I'd really appreciate your help. Can Mathematica do two evaluations at the same time? I've seen some conflicted answers to this question in texts and on the web, in the case of a dipole, for example.   Do magnetic fields do work directly, or is it their induced electric fields that do work? How do I transfer a file to my server using PuTTY? What are the shell's control and redirection operators? How to Execute ShortCut From Command line in Windows 7 We came with a scenario where we have to use Shortcut file (.lnk), which is on the desktop, to execute an application for a headless device (i.e, without manual intervention).  Is there any way to execute it from Command prompt? Am I correct to say the difference between a signed and unsigned integer is:  Unsigned can hold a larger positive value and no negative value. Unsigned uses the leading bit as a part of the value, while the signed version uses the left-most-bit to identify if the number is positive or negative. Signed integers can hold both positive and negative numbers.  Any other differences? Spinning bike's pedals are way bigger than the cleat pedals I have. What size do I need? Is there a public API for Stack Overflow? Unwanted comma between author and year using citet command I've been using the biblatex package for a while, and since updating my TeX installation (post-el capitan upgrade) I have been experiencing the following.   If the following is typed:  Such and such has been said \citep[111]{citekey}.   The following text is displayed:  Such and such has been said (Author, 2016, p. 111).   And if the following is typed:  \citet[111]{citekey} has said such and such.   The following text is displayed:  Author, (2016, p. 111) has said such and such.   The citep command is working as I want it to, but I do not want a comma placed after the author's name when using the citet command. I would like it to display as follows:  Author (2016, p. 111) has said such and such.    If I use the \citeyearpar command, it is fine, but I would rather not have to type the author's name in manually.   Here is the command placed in the preamble:  \usepackage[backend=bibtex, style=authoryear-icomp, url=true, isbn=false, natbib=true, sortcites=true, block=space, pagetracker=false, loccittracker=constrict]{biblatex}   Here is an example of an entry in my bib file (made using BibDesk):  @article{poldrack2006, Author = {Poldrack, Russell}, Journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences}, Number = {2}, Pages = {59--63}, Title = {{Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?}}, Volume = {10}, Year = {2006}}   I have also tried changing the entry to the following:  @article{poldrack2006, Author = {Russell Poldrack}, Journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences}, Number = {2}, Pages = {59--63}, Title = {{Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?}}, Volume = {10}, Year = {2006}}   The bibliography entry appears as follows, and is fine:  Poldrack, Russell (2006). “Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?” In: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.2, pp. 59–63.  Thank you for any help that can be offered. Story on quantum indeterminacy: protagonist has to “quantum select” a portable computer’s state Let's say I have two planets that are one hundred thousand lightyears away from each other. I and my immortal friend on the other planet want to communicate, with a strong laser and a tachyon communication device.  I record a message on the tachyon communication device and release the message at exactly the same time as I activate the laser, both of which are directed to the other planet which is one hundred thousand lightyears away. Say it is the year 0 for both of us at the time I did this.  If tachyons existed, then the message would arrive to my friend before the photons in the laser. It would arrive, say, a thousand years earlier. From my vantage point, that message will arrive to her at year 99,999; the same would be true for my friend's vantage point. However, she will only see the laser at year 100,000.  So since she got the message at year 99,999, she immediately sends me a reply back going through the same procedure as I did. She records a message and releases it at the same time as the laser. The tachyons will arrive 1,000 years earlier than the laser, so for me, I will receive the message at year 199,998. I will receive the laser, however, at year 199,999.  It seems to me that communication this way does not violate causality. I will still have received the message after I had sent it.   If tachyons truly violated causality, though, I realize it should arrive at year -1 for her, and so she can reply to me at year -2, which would mess me up by year 0 as I will ask her how she knew I was planning on sending her a message before I sent it. I could send her a different message, which she would end up receiving at year -1, and will end up confusing her as she would have received one message asking her out, and the other asking her how did she know I was asking her out. She then decides I am crazy and sends me a message at year -2 that she does not want to date me, and so she will have both turned me down and entertained me before I have even asked her out.  On the other hand, let's go back to year 0 and add a third device to our list: an Alcubierre drive. After I send out the message and the laser, I get impatient and do not feel like waiting 99,999 years, so I get on my Alcubierre drive spaceship and arrive on her planet at the same year 0. My friend is not in her office, so I leave a note to her also immortal secretary saying I dropped by and that she should expect a message for her in year 99,999.  I then get back on my Alcubierre drive and land back on my planet, still on year 0. Meanwhile, the tachyons and photons I sent out are still racing to arrive to her. By year 99,999, she receives the message just as I Alcubierre drive back to her, and I pick her up for dinner.  But the point of my question is, it seems to me that just going faster than light, if that alone was what you had, would not violate causality. It must be something else. I understand time dilation and that things with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, but using the Alcubierre drive, hypothetically speaking, I was still able to outpace the photons while also having mass. It still did not produce causality problems. Alcubierre drives are also valid solutions to GR.  It seems circular to me to say that what makes traveling faster than light violate causality is because it violates causality (if faster than light communication was divorced from causality problems, then the causality problem would cause itself -- thereby violating causality and, hence, we would scrap it and conclude that there is no causality problem after all).  What is it that I am missing? If someone could help me out, that would be excellent. I've been itching to ask my friend out for a few millenia now. :) Is an expanding map on a compact metric space continuous? I got inspired by this question  to think about the following problem: Suppose you have a compact metric space $(X,d)$ and an expanding map $T:X\rightarrow X$, i.e. $d(Tx,Ty)\geq d(x,y)$ for every $x,y\in X$. Is the map $T$ then continuous? Without assuming continuity we already know that $T^n(X)$ must be dense in $X$ for any $n\geq 1$, since given $z\in X$ the orbit of $z$ must accumulate upon $z$. But showing continuity has escaped me so far. If there are counter-examples using the Axiom of Choice that also interests me. Is the integral $\int_0^\infty \frac{\mathrm{d} x}{(1+x^2)(1+x^a)}$ equal for all $a \neq 0$? Let $a$ be a non-zero real number. Is it true that the value of $$\int\limits_0^\infty \frac{\mathrm{d} x}{(1+x^2)(1+x^a)}$$  is independent on $a$? In the movies, the Death Eaters leave a smoky trail behind them as they fly. As the Order arrive in the Ministry of Magic in Order of the Phoenix, they leave a silvery trail behind them. In the books, there’s no mention of how they’re doing this. And J.K. Rowling said in the books that only Voldemort and Snape could fly like this; first seen in the Battle of the Seven Potters.  Please can somebody explain how the Death Eaters are able to fly like this? Using 'very' with a noun Proving the measure of an increasing sequence of measurable sets is the limit of the measures Converse to Hilbert basis theorem Prove the converse to Hilbert basis theoren:     If the polynomial ring $R[x]$ is Noetherian, then $R$ is noetherian. Cartoon: 4 kids transform into video game characters to save the world from a hacker and an evil program There are 4 friends: 2 girls and 2 boys who play video games. A virus program escapes and, with the help of a programmer boy, transforms the world into a video game. But a good program in a white robe turns the four of them into video game characters to save the world.  The evil virus mostly looked like The Tick from the cartoon "The Tick". Big strong guy with muscles but in red spandex. Little head with antenas, BIG chin and evil mustache.  One hero is the typical blonde girl who can scream loudly with a microphone or headphones. The other chick was shorter, more a grumpy type and with her big metal boots she was able to rock / shake the ground. There was also a funny white boy with red hair, he was a cyber archer. And their black-skinned friend, a typical tech guy with maybe one laser eye.  The transformed world has always had a theme: a swamp, a volcano,  space, a cyber city, a sewer, once a pinball machine, and so on. For some game points they were able to summon different vehicles, weapons and reinforcements/buffs.  The story is made up of the usual repetitive events: every day the hacker guy transforms the world or just the city with a wicked program. Summoning new monsters and obstacles for stopping the good guys to defeat him.  But our heroes always win and the evil program comments what a loser he is and the guy get frustrated.  (In the end, they convince the hacker guy that it just using him and he chose the good side then they wiped out the evil program forever.) - NOPE XD  Not Code Lyoko, ReBoot, Linkers, Cyberchasers. There is no 3D; it was fully hand drawn. I think it was American, but was definitely not Japanese and there was no anime-like stuff. I was young when I saw it, i'm live in a foreign country Hungary. So i dont know when was it released, but maybe before 2005. The main group maybe has something "force" in their name. I'm trying to understand Python's approach to variable scope. In this example, why is f() able to alter the value of x, as perceived within main(), but not the value of n?  def f(n, x):     n = 2     x.append(4)     print('In f():', n, x)  def main():     n = 1     x = [0,1,2,3]     print('Before:', n, x)     f(n, x)     print('After: ', n, x)  main()   Output:  Before: 1 [0, 1, 2, 3] In f(): 2 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] After:  1 [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]