I am trying to fit a table in Latex. My table is so wide so I tried to change the page into landscape. However, this does not work. I have used these packages:   \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{pdflscape} \usepackage{rotating} \usepackage{geometry} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{lscape} \usepackage{adjustbox}   the table is :  %\begin{landscape} %\begin{sidewaystable} \begin{table}[ht] \caption{My caption} \label{my-label} \centering \begin{adjustbox}{width=1\textwidth} \small \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \cline{2-16} \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf prediction at baseline}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf prediction at 3 months}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf prediction at 6 months}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf prediction at 9 months}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf prediction for 44 patients}} \\ \cline{2-16}  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf N = 44, n\_0 =26 n\_1 =18}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf N = 22, n\_0 = 13 n\_1 =9}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf N = 40, n\_0 =24 n\_1 =16}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf N = 24, n\_0 =15 n\_1 =9}} &amp; \multicolumn{3}{c|}{{\bf N = 44, n\_0 =26 n\_1 =18}} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{Models} &amp; {\bf Sen.\%} &amp; {\bf Spe.\%} &amp; {\bf ER.\%} &amp; {\bf Sen.\%} &amp; {\bf Spe.\%} &amp; {\bf ER.\%} &amp; {\bf Sen.\%} &amp; {\bf Spe.\%} &amp; {\bf ER.\%} &amp; {\bf Sen.\%} &amp; {\bf Spe.\%} &amp; {\bf ER.\%} &amp; {\bf Sen.\%} &amp; {\bf Spe.\%} &amp; {\bf ER.\%} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{{\bf Linear DA}} &amp; 6 &amp; 88 &amp; 45 &amp; 22 &amp; 85 &amp; 41 &amp; 25 &amp; 88 &amp; 38 &amp; 22 &amp; 80 &amp; 42 &amp; 22 &amp; 81 &amp; 43 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{{\bf Quadratic DA}} &amp; 17 &amp; 88 &amp; 41 &amp; 56 &amp; 77 &amp; 32 &amp; 88 &amp; 67 &amp; 25 &amp; 89 &amp; 80 &amp; 17 &amp; 78 &amp; 73 &amp; 25 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{{\bf Marginal Pred.}} &amp; 22 &amp; 88 &amp; 39 &amp; 22 &amp; 92 &amp; 36 &amp; 75 &amp; 92 &amp; 15 &amp; 78 &amp; 93 &amp; 13 &amp; 67 &amp; 92 &amp; 18 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{{\bf Condition Pred.}} &amp; zero &amp; 100 &amp; 41 &amp; 11 &amp; 92 &amp; 41 &amp; 56 &amp; 96 &amp; 20 &amp; 67 &amp; 100 &amp; 13 &amp; 61 &amp; 100 &amp; 16 \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{|l|}{{\bf Random effects Pred.}} &amp; 17 &amp; 100 &amp; 34 &amp; 22 &amp; 92 &amp; 36 &amp; 38 &amp; 92 &amp; 30 &amp; 44 &amp; 93 &amp; 25 &amp; 44 &amp; 92 &amp; 27 \\ \hline \end{tabular}} \end{{adjustbox}} \end{table} %\end{sidewaystable} %\end{landscape}   Or at least the table fits well in  a page. could you please help me?
I have a table that is very wide. Now I want to force it into one landscape page. I already set the page orientation to landscape but now I don't know how to force it into one page with scaling. Any hints?
How to prove that $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} f(x)/x=L$ Let $f\colon(0,\infty)\to\mathbb R$ be differentiable on $(0,\infty)$ and suppose that $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} f'(x)=L$.         a. Show that for any $h&gt;0$, $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}h=L$.      b. Show that $\lim\limits_{x\to\infty} \frac{f(x)} {x} =L$.   this is a differentiation question.  i don't know how to solve this question  Because it is Korean, it is difficult to deal with this cite. So for me, it is not easy to write.  thank you Where should I post my sum-up of the answers, as the OP? Sometimes as the OP (question asker), after reading through all the answers, I have my own sum-up about them. I want to tell people and all further readers about my feeling and comprehension about my desired answer and how all the answers helped towards solving my problem.  Where's the correct place to put that information? Things I've considered:   Edit into my question: No because that's not part of the question A comment under the question: I dislike that due to limited formatting in comments and its subject to removal (though the latter won't be the case) A comment under the highest-scored or the accepted answer: Still the same reason above. This is, for the time being, the place I'm posting that. A separate answer: Those thoughts probably don't qualify as an answer Effects:  +25 attack damage +15% life steal +40% attack speed Passive  Unique: Your attacks deal 5% of the target's current health in physical damage (60 max vs minions and monsters). Active   Unique: Drains target champion, dealing 15% of the champion's maximum Health in physical damage and healing you by the same amount. Additionally you steal 30% of their movement speed for 4 seconds - 60 second cooldown. (500 range)  Cost: 3200g VS.   Effects:  +70 attack damage +12% life steal Passive: Gain +1 attack damage and +0.2% life steal per kill (maximum +30 attack damage and +6% life steal). Half of the bonuses are lost upon death.  Cost: 3200g What is better for what situations, and when should you build BT instead of BotRK and Vice Versa. Which provides more lifesteal, the only variable being the stats of the weapon? I find myself constantly questioning my decision on which weapon to get and would really love some in depth answers. Would be great if any examples given were given from the ADC side of the house. Intuitively, $\lim\limits_{t\to -\infty}te^t=0$, since $e^t\to 0$ much faster than $t\to -\infty$.   Is there a way to more rigorously compute this? Writing it as $e^t/(1/t)$ seems resistant to l'Hopital's rule. Should I assign dwellers to the storage room? I've played Fallout Shelter for a while now and normally use dwellers with appropriate SPECIAL stats for each room (Strength in the reactor, Perception in the water supply, etc).  However, I have a question regarding Endurance. The only room which uses this is the storage room. It doesn't produce anything; it has no cooldown; it just does nothing...  Even if I just build and upgrade the warehouse, my stock capacity is increased. Is there any good reason for me to waste my dwellers by assigning them to storage rooms? What canonical momenta are the "right" ones? I'm doing some classical field theory exercises with the Lagrangian $$\mathscr{L} = -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu}$$ where $F_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$. To find the conjugate momenta $\pi^\mu_{\ \ \ \nu} = \partial \mathscr{L} / \partial(\partial_\mu A^\nu)$, I can use two methods.  First method: directly apply this to $\mathscr{L}$. We get a a factor of $2$ since there are two $F$'s, and another factor of $2$ since each $F$ contains two $\partial_\mu A_\nu$ terms, giving $$\pi^\mu_{\ \ \ \nu} = -F^\mu_{\ \ \ \nu}.$$  Second method: get $\mathscr{L}$ in terms of $A$ by expanding and integrating by parts, yielding $$\mathscr{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\mu)^2 - \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu A^\nu)^2.$$ Differentiating this gets factors of $2$ and gives $$\pi^\mu_{\ \ \ \nu} = \partial_\rho A^\rho \delta^\mu_\nu - \partial^\mu A_\nu.$$  These two answers are different! (They do give the same equations of motion, at least.) I guess that means doing the integration by parts changed the canonical momenta.  Is this something I should be worried about? In particular, I have another exercise that wants me to show that one of the canonical momenta vanishes -- this isn't true for the ones I get from the second method! Plus, my stress-energy tensor is changed too. When a problem asks for "the" canonical momenta, am I forbidden from integrating by parts? What is the formula for Real vs Apparent Depth, when not looking perpendicular to the interface?   I know the formula $$\frac{\text{real depth}}{\text{apparent depth}}=n$$   but I'm not looking for this. How do I get the size of a directory on the command line? What will be the one's digit of the remainder in: $\left|5555^{2222} + 2222^{5555}\right|\div 7=?$ How to search entire hard drive for a file? how to extract multiple zipped and rar files recursively? I have a folder ExampleFolder which contains many zipped folders. These zipped folders also contains multiple zipped folders. How to go through ExampleFolder and extract all of its zipped folders recursively?   Note that ExampleFolder itself, is not zipped, it's just a normal folder  Okay now I know what's happening Rinzwind and nux answers are both correct (except that I have to keep pressing Y or A forever)  But it's seems that some of the zipped files, contained zipped files and rar files as well, the rar files will not be extracted by   while [ "`find . -type f -name '*.zip' | wc -l`" -gt 0 ]; do find -type f -name "*.zip" -exec unzip -- '{}' \; -exec rm -- '{}' \;; done    or whatever  Edit 2 Some files are named .r00 and r01, .r02 up to r14, they are rar files, but not .rar How to solve configure: error: readline library not found? I have an Ubuntu 10.04 LTS server with a minimal install that I want to compile postgres on. With the minimal install the server did not have gcc so I had to do an apt-get install gcc but now I keep getting this error from the postgres ./configure.  configure: error: readline library not found   I can't seem to find the name of the package that contains the readline library. So I have two questions.   What is the name of the package that contains readline? Is there some way given the error message above for me to find the associated package from its standard name? Should confidence intervals for linear regression coefficients be based on the normal or $t$ distribution? How to deal with SettingWithCopyWarning in Pandas Suppose that a box contains 10 red balls, 20 green balls, and 30 blue balls.   Suppose also that balls are drawn from the box one at a time at random.  What is the probability that all the red balls are drawn before the blue or green balls are themselves exhausted. What is the probability that as the last red ball is drawn, there remains at least one blue and one green left in the box.  The answer I was given is $\dfrac{7}{12}$ and a general equation is: $$ \dfrac{b g}{1-b}+\dfrac{b g}{1-g} $$ where $$ g=\dfrac{20}{60},b=\dfrac{30}{60} $$ but why? Prove $5\mid2^{4n}-1$ by induction An integer $a \pmod m$ has inverse if and only if $\gcd(a,m)=1$? An integer $a \pmod m$ has inverse if and only if $\gcd(a,m)=1$?  Why is this? I tried understanding it from my notes but I don't get it.  A thorough explanation would be greatly welcome.  Thanks for all the answers so far. I think my biggest problem is understanding why $\gcd(a,m)\neq1 \Longrightarrow \not\exists a^{-1}$. Markdown does not allow for bold italic, then bold, then bold italic I am trying in one of my posts to do this:  ***how many*** **and** ***where***   Which for some reason comes out like this:    Why is that happening?  Shouldn't the middle word be bold?  Is this  for markdown or is it (as I assume) a ? I aim to show that $$(n+1)^n&lt;n^{(n+1)}$$ for all $n \geq 3$. I tried induction, but it didn't work. What should I do? Is denying "Paradoxical Partitioning" equivalent to accepting the Axiom of Choice? In  (to ) it has been noted:     One more point to make about the paradoxical decomposition to more parts than elements [...]   currently we do not know of any model of +$\lnot$ where such decomposition does not exist.    Namely, as far as we know, in all models where choice fails there is some set which can be partitioned into more parts than elements.   (Just for clarification: From the context of the above references the comparison "more parts than" is obviously meant in terms of the  of the suitable  being strictly larger than the cardinality of the suitable initial set itself.)  Now, I find the negation or denial of such "paradoxial partitioning" interesting; i.e. the statement (proposition, "$\lnot$PP"):  "Each partition of each given set has cardinality less than, or at most equal to, the cardinality of the given set."  And I like to further explore how this suggested "proposition $\lnot$PP" (being considered along with ZF, of course) relates to "the standard set theory including Axiom of Choice", . Therefore  My questions:      Are there any models of ZFC known (or could there be any such models, in principle) in which there is some set which can be partitioned into more parts than elements ?  And:  Are there any models of ZF known (or could there be any such models, in principle) in which there is no set which can be partitioned into more parts than elements, and which is not also a model of ZFC ?  (And just for reference: Is there a conventional or concise way of expressing the suggested "proposition $\lnot$PP" in terms of standard notation, such as used in the sources linked above? Has it perhaps been discussed already, by some other name? ...)