my bibtex stopped showing refrences. It shows now only '[?]'. The story is like this. I use pdfLatex within the TexWorks. It worked all right. But after i added extra couple of new refs in the bib file, it did not want to show them in the text and showwed only [?]. ted the .AUX files. And it stopped showing ALL refs...just [?]'s. What can i do about it?
I've browsed the forums and found a number of posts that have addressed this issue, but none of the solutions seem to work for me. I have the following script that I just copied from the bibtex home page to get familiar with it. Instead of the citation number I get a question mark. I compile using Latex+Bibtex+Latex+Latex+PDFLatex+ViewPDF just as has been previously suggested and the problem persists.   \documentclass[11pt]{article} \usepackage{cite}  \begin{document}  \title{My Article} \author{Nobody Jr.} \date{Today} \maketitle  Blablabla said Nobody ~\cite{Nobody06}.  \bibliography{mybib} \bibliographystyle{plain} \end{document}   My bibliography (Bib.bbl)  @misc{ Nobody06, author = "Nobody Jr", title = "My Article", year = "2006" }    Looking at previous posts one thing that is concerning is that my .bbl looks empty as shown below. Further, I don't have a .blg  \begin{thebibliography}{}  \end{thebibliography}
Reading the question posted  left me with a more general question:  Given the professional title and name: Dr. (First Name)(Last Name), is there some way to differentiate between the holder of a philosophical doctorate and a medical doctor? Wouldn't it be more appropriate for a PhD holder to have the title (First Name)(Last Name), PhD? I don't mean people with low self esteem.  But there are people who feel happy at being able to make other people laugh at their own expense. I remember someone telling me there is a word for them, I can't find it.  Let me explain:  I sometimes, while sitting with a group of people, might just tell them a personal embarrassing story, which might be completely fabricated, to make other people laugh. And when they laugh, I feel happiness.  I'm also self deprecating, but not in a way that I hate myself, rather,  just my work (I'm a screenwriter) and knowing I can do better. I do not self deprecate myself in public (I don't praise myself either).   Edit: Now that its mentioned, I think the word I'm talking about was used to describe a person's sense of humor. Or it could be a word used to describe a psychological trait/disorder.  Edit: I just looked up humor styles on Wikipedia. And after reading it, I guess the word that closely matches what I'm looking for is 'Affiliated Humor' but in a 'Self Defeating' style. Package dbus is not configured yet How come SG-1 couldn't get back to Earth? In Stargate SG-1 S02E16, , SG-1 (Captain Carter, Teal'c and two other members, who replaced Colonel O'Neill and Dr Jackson) is "trapped" on planet in binary system, where second star has risen and is slowly raising temperature - Samantha Carter says, in one moment, that it's going to reach 200°F soon - and dialing device is locked mid-dial. Yet, SGC manages to dial the planet and send them instructions how to repair the device and off-world team makes it back.  Why didn't they come back when Earth first dialed P9Q-281 to contact SG-1? I mean, from my understanding, stargate wormhole is two-directional, meaning it doesn't matter which end it was activated from, yet it seems like it is one-directional from the events of this episode... Create UEFI bootable USB stick to install Windows AND Ubuntu from it I know how to make a UEFI bootable stick to install Ubuntu (explained ) and I know how to make one to install Windows 7 (, sorry). I guess for Win 8 the procedure would be similar, but I haven't looked into it.  I also know how to make a legacy bootable stick from which I can install Windows and Ubuntu using YUMI. I have failed so far though at creating a UEFI bootable stick that can do this. When I do a UEFI boot from my YUMI multiboot stick it gives me no option to choose between Ubuntu and Windows (hardly surprising I guess) and instead simply UEFI boots Windows (which I find kind of surprising to be honest but maybe this is due to the fact that I added the Windows image after the Ubuntu image and this simply replaced Ubuntu's EFI boot files).  So how would I proceed to create such a bootable stick? Restricting T to string and int? If $n&gt;1$ is an integer, then $\sum \limits_{k=1}^n \frac1k$ is not an integer.  If you know , then you know there must be a prime $p$ between $n/2$ and $n$, so $\frac 1p$ appears in the sum, but $\frac{1}{2p}$ does not. Aside from $\frac 1p$, every other term $\frac 1k$ has $k$ divisible only by primes smaller than $p$. We can combine all those terms to get $\sum_{k=1}^n\frac 1k = \frac 1p + \frac ab$, where $b$ is not divisible by $p$. If this were an integer, then (multiplying by $b$) $\frac bp +a$ would also be an integer, which it isn't since $b$ isn't divisible by $p$.  Does anybody know an elementary proof of this which doesn't rely on Bertrand's Postulate? For a while, I was convinced I'd seen one, but now I'm starting to suspect whatever argument I saw was wrong. $\chi(G)+\chi(G')\leq n+1$ How to prove, that the sum of chromatic numbers of graph and it's complement is smaller then the number of vertices incremented by one?  $\chi(G)+\chi(G')\leq n+1$  The notes from my classes say to color the first graph using sequential algorithm with vertices ordered by their degrees (the ones with lowest appear first). We would get $k_1$ colors, then we color the graph $G'$ in the backwards order and get $k_2$ colors, and the sum $k_1+k_2$ in my notes is magically smaller than $n+1$, but I just don't see why... Why separate Stack Exchange accounts? I understand the reason why Stack Exchange has different sites to separate  from  or . I understand too why the reputation is associated on each site.   Why do I have to create a new  for each web site? I know that when I create a new account, it is automatically associated to my other accounts. But, is there a reason why, when I originally create a user on the first site, I can't go on another site with this user? To prove the convergence of the p-series   $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac1{n^p}$$  for $p &gt; 1$, one typically appeals to either the Integral Test or the Cauchy Condensation Test.  I am wondering if there is a self-contained proof that this series converges which does not rely on either test.    I suspect that any proof would have to use the ideas behind one of these two tests. Understanding central limit theorem What is wrong with the following sentence:      The Central Limit Theorem  implies that, as the sample size grows, the error distribution approaches normality.   Am I correct by saying that it should in stead state the MEAN of the sample error approaches zero as sample size grows? apt-get update fails to fetch files, “Temporary failure resolving …” error How can I compile, run and decompile C# code in Ubuntu terminal? What is a serialVersionUID and why should I use it? Ambiguity of the word 'any'? How to exit from an application which doesn’t exit on press back button? Can I mix MySQL APIs in PHP? Clicking on  doesn't connect me with the meta S.Ex.SE site.  EDIT: For some entry points, . Observation courtesy Gilles.  I consider it a pity that the devs have not paid attention to this issue nor have indicated that they noted the problem. While HTTPS is not yet official on this network, I refrain from using unencrypted connections. I can't participate in metas, oh well.  EDIT #2 (2015-11-07) - with the switch to CloudFlare SSL the problem looks finally resolved.  EDIT #3 (2015-11-17) - still getting 403 Forbidden from CloudFlare. D'rats!..  EDIT #4 (2016-01-11) - We're still there. It's 2016 already... Starting a bounty. What is a use case where one would use an SObject as a Map key? For any matrix $A$, $AA^T$ is symmetric, and thereby diagonalizable (Spectral Theorem). This implies that $AA^T$ has n linearly independent eigenvectors and therefore full rank.  Does this imply that for any matrix $A$, $AA^T$ is always invertible ? I know there is something wrong here because from the above chain we can conclude that a symmetric matrix is always invertible, which is definitely not true.  Could someone please point out where I am going wrong?