I am interested to know about rules in writing abstract in social sciences. Is it wrong if you just cited in the abstract around two key authors of frameworks where your study was based? Then citations were avoided for the rest of the abstract?
I'd like to know your opinion on citations in abstracts. At my university, there is no rule on that matter so it's basically a question of preference.  Do you think it's okay to have citations in an abstract or do you  personally prefer to have the abstract be a ``stand-alone'' piece of  work?
ListPlot and filling between curves How does Salesforce SSO call just-in-time handler methods I am having a hard time digging up some information on this as I believe it is still relatively new. If you implement SSO with Salesforce you have the ability to enable SAML. I have enabled SAML and have also enabled JIT with an automatically created class to support it.  Out of this newly generated class, there are two global methods that I am assuming are called upon SSO, but I do not know which one is called or how.   global User createUser(Id samlSsoProviderId, Id communityId, Id portalId,     String federationIdentifier, Map&lt;String, String&gt; attributes, String assertion) {     User u = new User();     handleJit(true, u, samlSsoProviderId, communityId, portalId,         federationIdentifier, attributes, assertion);     return u; }  global void updateUser(Id userId, Id samlSsoProviderId, Id communityId, Id portalId,     String federationIdentifier, Map&lt;String, String&gt; attributes, String assertion) {     User u = [SELECT Id, FirstName, ContactId FROM User WHERE Id=:userId];     handleJit(false, u, samlSsoProviderId, communityId, portalId,         federationIdentifier, attributes, assertion); }   Does Salesforce have some backend code that interprets the SAML coming over the SSO and then calls the methods appropriately?   The reason I am asking this is because I would like to cancel a user's SSO if they do not match x fields based off of the values coming across in the SAML in the SSO. If I did not want to update a user or create a user, would I be able to add in my own global class that could be called from the SSO?   Let me know if this is unclear / does not make sense.  Thanks Daily forecasting We have three years of data for online visits at a daily level. We want to forecast the daily visits for the next 90 days. What would be the best method to capture weekday seasonality , holiday seasons, and also the drift.  Can this be successfully done in R? We are currently using R. We have considered ARIMA but it does not capture seasonality.  While converting the data to a time series in R,  what should be the "frequency"?  Should we use ARIMA with regressors? In PHP 5, what is the difference between using self and $this?  When is each appropriate? Select list of node titles for a view exposed filter What does the big intersection or union sign of a set mean? In some cases, we will have to consider the union or the intersection of several, even infinitely many sets, defined in the obvious way. For example, if for every positive integer $n$, we are given a set $S_n$, then   $$\bbox[border:1px solid red]{\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty S_n}=S_1\cup S_2\cup\cdots=\{x\mid x\in S_n\text{ for some }n\},$$   and   $$\bigcap_{n=1}^\infty S_n=S_1\cap S_2\cap\cdots=\{x\mid x\in S_n\text{ for all }n\}.$$   Two sets are said to be disjoint if their intersection is empty. More generally, several sets are said to be disjoint if no two of them have a common element. A collection of sets is said to be a partition of a set $S$ if the sets in the collection are disjoint and their union is $S$.   Normally what I know is that you can make a union or an intersection between only two sets. In this expression, there is a big union of sets. I'm asking about the meaning of this expression – what does it mean? What does the infinity sign do at the top?  Things are even more complicated with De Morgan's laws, which use the same expression:     Two particularly useful properties are given by De Morgan's laws which state that   $$\left(\bigcup_nS_n\right)^c=\bigcap_nS_n^c,\quad\quad\quad\quad\left(\bigcap_nS_n\right)^c=\bigcup_nS_n^c.$$   Anyone who can explain to me the expression or De Morgan's laws would be much appreciated. In biblatex, treat periods in journal as abbreviation dots I would like to consistently have a comma between the journal and volume number for article references using biblatex with biber as the backend. Unfortunately, the punctuation between the journal and volume is not consistent. Journals whose last word is abbreviated have no comma between the journal and the volume, and the word "Vol." is capitalized. Journals whose last word is not abbreviated have a comma and the word "vol." is not capitalized. I can fix the capitalization by un-commenting the commented lines in the below MWE, but the comma problem is quite perplexing. Apologies if this fix is in an answer somewhere, but I cannot find it (or at least, I don't know what to search for!).  Current output: [1] First Author. “Blah Blah 2”. In: Am. J. Phys. Vol. 72, no. 3 (Mar. 2004), pp. 367–375. [2] Second Author. “Blah blah”. In: Energy Fuel, vol. 27, no. 12 (Dec. 2013), pp. 7778–7789.  Expected output: [1] First Author. “Blah Blah 2”. In: Am. J. Phys., vol. 72, no. 3 (Mar. 2004), pp. 367–375. [2] Second Author. “Blah blah”. In: Energy Fuel, vol. 27, no. 12 (Dec. 2013), pp. 7778–7789.  MWE:  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{filecontents} \usepackage[     backend=biber,     citestyle=numeric-comp, ]{biblatex} \addbibresource{\jobname} % \DefineBibliographyStrings{english}{%     % volume = {\lowercase{v}ol\adddot}, % avoid capitalization after dots. % } \DeclareFieldFormat[article]{volume}{\bibstring{volume}\addspace #1} \DeclareFieldFormat[article]{number}{\bibstring{number}\addspace #1} \renewbibmacro*{volume+number+eid}{%   \printfield{volume}%   \setunit{\addcomma\space}%&lt;---- was \setunit*{\adddot}%   \printfield{number}%   \setunit{\addcomma\space}%   \printfield{eid}} \renewbibmacro*{journal+issuetitle}{%   \usebibmacro{journal}%   \setunit*{\addcomma\addspace}%&lt;---- was \setunit*{\addspace}%   \iffieldundef{series}     {}     {\newunit      \printfield{series}%      \setunit{\addspace}}%   \usebibmacro{volume+number+eid}%   \setunit{\addspace}%   \usebibmacro{issue+date}%   \setunit{\addcolon\space}%   \usebibmacro{issue}%   \newunit}  \begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib} @article{York2004, author = {Author, First}, journal = {Am. J. Phys.}, month = mar, number = {3}, pages = {367--375}, title = {{Blah Blah 2}}, volume = {72}, year = {2004} } @article{Baumgardner2013a, author = {Author, Second}, journal = {Energy Fuel}, month = dec, number = {12}, pages = {7778--7789}, title = {{Blah blah}}, volume = {27}, year = {2013} } \end{filecontents*}  \begin{document} \nocite{*} \printbibliography \end{document} May I use a question mark in the middle of a sentence? Examples:  Would you like the drapes to be white? or perhaps something off-white? Would you like the logo to be centered? at the bottom? left off entirely? Show that all horses are of the same color. Im trying to understand the solution about this, and all the other solutions are.. a bit weird for me and dont answer all my questions!  Reference :   Im using the answer there as reference, but my understanding is a bit different!     Find the error in the following proof that all horses are the same   color. CLAIM: In any set of h horses, all horses are the same color.      PROOF: By induction on h.      Basis: For h = 1. In any set containing just one horse, all horses   clearly are the same color. Induction step: For k > I assume that the   claim is true for h = k and prove that it is true for h = k + 1. Take   any set H of k + 1 horses. We show that all the horses in this set are   the same color. Remove one horse from this set to obtain the set H1   with just k horses. By the induction hypothesis, all the horses in H,   are the same color. Now replace the removed horse and remove a   different one to obtain the set H2 . By the same argument, all the   horses in H2 are the same color. Therefore all the horses in H must be   the same color, and the proof is complete.   Here's what i have come up with :  Suppose a set of 1 horse. $H_a = { horse_{1} }$  Obviously, all the horses in set $H_a$ are the same, since theres just 1 horse.  So using that as the Basis of the induction we can proceed and try to prove its true for $N$ horses.  -- I dont fully understand the part below   As an example : set $H_0$ :   $H_0 = { horse_{1}, horse_{2}, horse_{3}... horse_{n} }$  In my understanding, its because, I can make a subset  formed by 1 horse :  $K_1  = {horse_{1}}$ $K_2  = {horse_{2}}$ ...  I don't get it. I clearly know that this proof is a lie.  And for me, its because you cant claim theres a relation on a set with size $&gt;= 2$ , since :  $H_1 = { horse_{1}, horse_{2}}$  Theres nothing that says $horse_{1}$ equals $horse_{2}$. The basis was for one horse. But that alone is not a proof.  So what should I do ? How can I use std::maps with user-defined types as key? How to preserve the same parskip in minipage Why is there no chat in the footer on Stack Overflow like on other sites? I recently came across an algorithm that works on values assuming that they are draw from a monoid equipped with a total ordering relation.  I was wondering if there is a term for such a structure, since it seems related to concepts like Euclidean domains and fields (though the requirements are much less strict).  Does this entity have a name?  Or is it just "a monoid over totally ordered elements?"  Thanks! How to randomize (shuffle) a JavaScript array? How do I calculate CRC32 of a string How do I calculate the CRC32 (Cyclic Redundancy Checksum) of a string in .NET? Changing plurality in parentheses If a set of parentheses lies between a subject and its verb, and the parentheses contain an substitutive subject whose singularity/plurality disagrees with the original subject, whose singularity/plurality should be chosen for the verb?  In other words, in the following example, should "questions" (and its verb "are") be singular, or should they remain plural as shown?     Many (if not every) questions on this StackExchange are answered.   My intuition tells me that the two words in question should remain in plural forms, since the text in parentheses only interrupts the sentence (and the sentence would be grammatically incorrect if everything in parentheses were removed and the words were in singular form).  On the other hand, when read aloud (assuming one reads the text in parentheses), this has an uncomfortable sound to it, and I've seen others write in what would be the above example's singular-form case, so I'm curious to find out which is correct.  And, thinking about it, I suppose the same question would apply when commas are used in place of parentheses. How do you make sure email you send programmatically is not automatically marked as spam? Best factor extraction methods in factor analysis SPSS offers several methods of factor extraction:   Principal components (which isn't factor analysis at all) Unweighted least squares Generalized least squares Maximum Likelihood Principal Axis Alpha factoring Image factoring   Ignoring the first method, which isn't factor analysis (but  principal component analysis, PCA), which of these methods is "the best"? What are the relative advantages of the different methods? And basically, how would I choose which one to use?  Additional question: should one obtain similar results from all 6 methods? How many ancestors alive 1000 years ago does a person have on average? I was thinking about something the other day (that is probably stupid), and thought this would be a good place to talk about it.  If someone wanted to draw its family tree over the last 1000 years, he'd write a binary tree with a depth of about 40 (counting 25 years on average between each generations). This tree would have 240 leaves, or about 1012 ancestors on the deeper level. That is obviously much more than the total world population and a stupid figure when you think about it.  The only explanation that I can think of is that a real genealogy tree must have "linked" branches at several levels that change the actual number of ancestors. Anyway, for an average person, how many ancestors would that make? Could one assume that all or nearly all of the persons that lived in its country or world region a 1000 years ago would be part of its ancestors? My friend and I are planning a vacation to Ireland later this year. We'll be there for a week, flying into Dublin and then renting a car and driving around the country.  Both of us are 23. Are there any age restrictions on renting cars in Ireland? What would be the cheapest/best option for us?