Not possible to search for umlaute in LaTeX I am using \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} so I am able write umlaute inside the tex file, but I can't search for a word that contains umlaute inside the compiled pdf.  Is this a "bug" inside LaTeX or do I have to change something in my tex file? If I copy a word that contains a umlaut like wähle this: "W ̈ ahle" appears in my clipbox.
What are good ways to make pdflatex output copy-and-pasteable? One frequent aspect of pdflatex output that could be improved is to what extent one can select text output from the generated pdf-file and copy-and-paste it. This is essentially an issue of having the right output encoding. There are at least two important aspects to this:   In the ideal case, Unicode would be the output encoding. Ligature glyphs (such as ﬁ) are ideally de-ligated in the output (here: "fi").   It seems that output encodings are specified through the fontenc package. What is the range of possible output encodings, and most importantly: Is there a way to specify a Unicode output encoding and one that deals with ligatures in the intended way?  (Note: It is important to distinguish output from input encodings. How to use different input encodings in LaTeX has been documented widely. My understanding is that this is best handled by the inputenx package, as it supersedes the inputenc package.)    Quick guide to the solutions: The information in the answers and answer threads is a bit distributed, so here the short summary: one approach is to use \input glyphtounicode together with \pdfgentounicode=1; the other approach is to use cmap/mmap.  Addendum: Sometimes one will need to load the package accsupp and enclose one's macro definition in \BeginAccSupp{method=hex,unicode,ActualText=&lt;codepoint&gt;}[...]\EndAccSupp{} to generate a specific code point. See the caveat about non-BMP code points  and the fix (starting from accsupp version v0.4, 2012/11/18) , which provides the new unichar package option.
When I was in the university (in the late 90s, circa 1995) I was told there had been research investigating the $2$ (the square of distance) in the Newton's law of universal gravitation.  $$F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}.$$  Maybe a model like   $$F=G\frac{m_1m_2}{r^a}$$  with $a$ slightly different from $2$, let say $1.999$ or $2.001$, fits some experimental data better?  Is that really true? Or did I misunderstand something? It has been said that RSA uses a modulus product of two prime numbers for security reasons. But does RSA even work correctly if we allow composite integers instead?  I think that the answer is "NO".  Define “work correctly” as:   allows encryption and decryption to be carried out as in normal RSA, yielding the original message (message padding and unpadding can remain unspecified, or absent as in texbook RSA); a security level can be given in terms of the key generation process (which may have alternate requirements to testing that $p$ and $q$ are prime). Why does the base-emitter voltage of a BJT decrease with temperature? According to Sedra/Smith Microelectronic Circuits, \$v_{BE}\$ changes by \$-2\text{mV}/\text{°C}\$. I cannot understand how this could possibly be the case given the equations I am familiar with.  With all currents kept constant, we have:  \$\large{i_E = \frac{I_s}{\alpha}e^{v_{BE}/V_T}}\$  To keep \$i_E\$ constant, any change in \$V_T\$ would have to be accompanied by a change of the same factor in \$v_{BE}\$, otherwise \$\alpha\$ or \$I_s\$ would have to change, which as far as I understand is not possible.  So, how can \$v_{BE}\$ be inversely proportional to \$V_T\$? center align equation in ‎\documentclass[11pt,twoside,fleqn]{book}‎ Does the sign of scores or of loadings in PCA or FA have a meaning? May I reverse the sign? I have a question about something I'm wondering about. I've read somewhere that L'Hopitals rule can also be applied to complex functions, when they are analytic. So if have for instance:  $$ \lim_{z \rightarrow 0} \frac{\log(1+z)}{z} \stackrel{?}{=} \lim_{z \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{(1+z)} = 1 $$  Now i'm wondering if this is correct? Also if we take $|z|&lt;1$, is it then correct?  Thanks, I think this is a basic question, but it's hard to wrap my head around. Can a hotel kick you out if you let an unregistered guest share a room with you? We are going to an event and because of this event all hotels are fully booked. Now a friend wants to join us, but can't find accommodation. We are okay with him crashing in our hotel room, either on the couch or on a self-inflatable mattress. We have done this in the past where we secretly sneaked the "guest" in.   It is not that we don't want to pay the tourist tax, it is that when ask and the hotel says no, we can't sneak him in, because we drew attention to ourself. In many hotels you can just order another bed, but there are also a lot that don't have that service.   I don't have any ethical problems with my behavior of secretly hosting a guest. I did pay for the room. I don't like being sneaky about it, since again I do pay for the hotel room. Also if I have to choose between sneaking someone in the room to crash on the couch or let him/her sleep on bench in the park. I opt for the first.   Am I just worrying to much and will being honest about it in the end be acceptable to most if not all hotels? Maximum power transfer and Thevenin Prove the following using epsilon-delta definition:  Let $a \in \mathbb{R}$ and $f,g$ be defined on $\mathbb{R}$.  If  $$\lim_{x\to a} f(x) = 647 \tag 1$$  and $$\lim_{x\to a} g(x) = \infty \tag 2$$ then   $$\lim_{x\to a} f(x) + g(x) = \infty.$$  $$(1) \implies\forall \epsilon &gt; 0, \exists \delta &gt; 0, s.t. |x-a|&lt;\delta \implies |f(x)-647| &lt; \epsilon$$  $$(2) \implies \forall M &gt; 0, \exists \delta_2 &gt; 0, s.t. |x-a|&lt;\delta_2 \implies |g(x)| &gt; M$$  Not sure about this... I've set up the definitions. I believe we will have to take a minimum between the deltas for first two limits then use it in the third.  Anyone have any clues? How long is it safe to marinate meat? Convergence of the sequence $\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1}},\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1}}},\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1+4\sqrt{1}}}},\cdots$ I recently came across this problem     Q1 Show that $\lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} \underbrace{{\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1+4\sqrt{1+\cdots+n\sqrt{1}}}}}}}_{n \textrm{ times  }} = 3$   After trying it I looked at the solution from that book which was very ingenious but it was incomplete because it assumed that the limit already exists.  So my question is     Q2 Prove that the sequence$$\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1}},\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1}}},\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1+4\sqrt{1}}}},\cdots,\sqrt{1+2\sqrt{1+3\sqrt{1+4\sqrt{1+\cdots+n\sqrt{1}}}}}$$ converges.   Though I only need solution for Q2, if you happen to know any complete solution for Q1 it would be a great help .  If the solution from that book is required I can post it but it is not complete as I mentioned.   Edit: I see that a similar question was asked before on this site but it was not proved that limit should exist. This is a question of the book Linear Algebra of Kenneth Hoffman.  Describe explicitly all inner products on $\mathbb{R}$ and on $\mathbb{C}$.  I think that if $&lt;,&gt;$ is one inner product on $\mathbb{R}$ (or $\mathbb{C}$) then $&lt; ,&gt;=K[,]$, where $[,]$ is the standard inner product. Is that correct? I have several entries in my list of references that include of the order of 40 authors. Is there a way to make bibtex automatically reduce these lists to e.g. the first name + "et al."?  I don't want to edit the BibTeX entries manually and I cannot use biblatex. If at all possible I would also make as little changes as possible to the bibliography style.  There are similar questions, but none of those had a concise answer:       natbib e.g. seems to change only the reference within the text, but not the entry in the bibliography.  EDIT: I am using \bibliographystyle{unsrt} as style definition. Change owner of internal hard drive partition from root to user I have a number of drives internal and external. Some are partitioned. Most mount automatically at boot (all did at one point).    One partition is owned by root and therefore does not mount automatically. I know how to mount it as root.   I do not know how to take ownership of that partition as user X. I have tried changing permissions using the gui in Nautilus as root. They are not accepted and immediately revert.  The partition is NTFS. The other parition on that drive is owned by me as user and mounts automatically Prove that $2730$ divides $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$. Prove that $2730$ divides $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$.   What I attempted is breaking $2730$ into $2, 3, 5$, and $7, 13$. Thus if I prove each prime factor divides by $n^{13} - n$ for all integers $n$, it will prove the original problem.   I already proved $2, 3$, and $5$ work. Struggling with how to do $91$?  Other solutions are welcome, but they should be associated with mod and solutions of this kind, because my answer should pertain to what was learned in class.  (Edit: Fixed the 91 problem, being slow today...In any case, I've got this problem now, so no answers are necessary. Posting my own soon.) Let $u:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a harmonic function such that $0\leq u(z)$ for all $ z \in \mathbb{C}$. Prove that $u$ is constant.  I think i should use Liouville's theorem, but how can i do that? Help! -Bash command not found appearing every time I start terminal every time I start my terminal, it always says "-bash:  .: command not found" twice.  Does anyone know how I can get rid of that? Show that Function Compositions Are Associative I have a distribution of microparticles that follows a lognormal distribution. The cumulative distribution function thus is given by:  $$ F_X(x;\mu,\sigma) = \frac12 \operatorname{erfc}\!\left(-\frac{\ln x - \mu}{\sigma\sqrt{2}}\right) $$ $$ \mu = ln(M) + \sigma^2 $$  Now, the plot of the distribution function should be exactly the same no matter if the particle diameter $x$ is given in micrometers or meters (as long as I adapt the x-axis accordingly of course). However, this only works if I only convert $x$ and $M$, while not touching the numerical value of $\sigma$, and I don't understand why. $F_X$ has to be unitless, so $x$, $\mu$ and $\sigma$ should all have the same unit, right?