I would like to input items in a bibliography as follows:  Author(for example: Mike)  item 1: article  item 2: book  item 3；...  How can I do this?  Could anybody help me? Thanks in advance. There is a little difference from others. I need the following form  Milnor, J.:  [1]. Construction of universal bundles: I, Ann. Math., (2)63:272-284 (1956).  [2]. Construction of universal bundles: II, Ann. Math., (2)63: 430-436 (1956).  Milnor, J., and M. A. Kervaire:  [3]. Bernoulli numbers, homotopy groups, and a theorem of Rohlin, Proc. Intern.       Congr. Math., 1958.
I'm working on a new edition of a book which uses a very unusual style of bibliography: Entries are sorted in author-year fashion, but then numbered per author or group of authors, e.g.:  Milnor, J.:    1. Construction of universal bundles: I, Ann. Math., (2)63:272-284 (1956).    2. Construction of universal bundles: II, Ann. Math., (2)63: 430-436 (1956).    3. On manifolds homeomorphic to the 7-sphere, Ann. Math., (2)64: 399-405       (1956).    4. The theory of characteristic classes, mimeographed, Princeton University,       Princeton, N.J., 1957. Milnor, J., and M. A. Kervaire:    1. Bernoulli numbers, homotopy groups, and a theorem of Rohlin, Proc. Intern.       Congr. Math., 1958. Milnor, J., and E. Spanier:    1. Two remarks on fibre homotopy type, Pacific J. Math., 10: 585-590 (1960).   Citations are formatted as Milnor [3], and so on.  Is there any bibtex style for something strange as this? Or can this type of bibliography be created with biblatex without too much coding?
How to install Eclipse J2EE IDE from a tarball? I have downloaded Eclipse 3.6.1 as a tar.gz file from eclipse site. Then I extract using  cmd: tar -zxvf eclipse-jee-helios-SR1-linux-gtk.tar.gz  after execute this cmd I got eclipse folder in this there is eclipse file. When I double click on this eclipse file I'm getting following error:     Could not display "/media/D-DEVELOPME/eclipse/eclipse".   There is no application installed for executable files   is there any solution for it? Difference between SQL batch, statement and RPC? What is the difference between SQL batch, T-SQL statement and Remote Procedure Call? How can I tell if part of the T-SQL code is a batch or statement? Prove norm doesn't come from inner product. Please help me prove this. I'm not sure how to apply the parallelogram law to the norm. Suppose the mean noon-time temperature for September days in San Diego is 24∘ and the standard deviation is 4.9. (Temperature in this problem is measured in degrees celsius)  On September 26, 1963, the all-time record of noon-time temperature in San Diego of 44∘ was hit. Assume the temperature distribution is symmetric around the mean, what is the Chebyshev bound for the probability of breaking (or tieing) this record?  I am having a hard time understanding this. Could someone explain to me how to do this? Is Multiplying the Inverse Better or Worse? When dealing with double data types is multiplying by the inverse better or worse? Which way is faster? Which way uses less memory? Which way is preferred? How does MSIL handle this? SquareInches = MMSquared / 645.16  SquareInches = MMSquared * 0.0015500031000062000124000248000496    NB: 10K users will note that this is a duplicate of , which was deleted because the original question asker decided to berate everyone in the 'comments' section of the question.  This question was reposted because it is a 'good' question. Please 'uncheck' Community Wiki for your answer, as I'm only posting this as CW so that it's not seen as a 'reputation' grab. Related Question: How do I disable the resizable property of a textarea? Let $f(z)$ be an entire function such that $$|f(z)|&lt;\frac{1}{|\text{Im}(z)|},\qquad z\in\Bbb C-\Bbb R.$$ The question asked me to prove that $f(z)=0$. At least looking at it, it really seems to have an application of Liouville's theorem lurking around somewhere, but I haven't found it.   My thoughts first led me to think about doing this by contradiction and using Picard's little theorem. So, I've considered a strip containing the real axis (say of width $2$ for simplicity). This will imply the complement maps into the unit disk, which implies that this strip has to map almost everywhere else on the complex plane. Now, on the imaginary axis, I know that $f(z)$ will vanish as $z\to\infty$, and this seems like it might be useful. I'm sort of under the impression $f(z)$ might have an essential singularity at $\infty$, which would mean $f(1/z)$ has an essential singularity at $0$. Either way, it of course can't have a pole at $\infty$ because of $f(z)$ vanishing on the imaginary axis, and if it is a removable singularity, it must be $0$, which still gives the solution. Therefore, I think it must have something to do with $f(z)$ having an essential singularity at $\infty$.   I was hoping to combine this with the above inequality and deduce a contradiction, but I haven't thought of one yet.   Any hints or suggestions? I'm studying for a prelim. exam, so this isn't homework.  Update: So, in the spirit of searching methods using the essential singularity at $z=0$, we have $$\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|\leq\frac{1}{\left|\text{Im}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|}=\frac{|z|^2}{|y|}.$$ Thus, for $|y|&gt;1$, we have $$\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|&lt;|y|\left|f\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)\right|&lt;|z|^2.$$ Thus, if I can show that $|f(1/z)|$ is a polynomial, we'll know it can't have an essential singularity at the origin, concluding my proof. Negative R squared contradicts ssa/sst? I understand from this question -    that the R squared value of a linear regression model can be negative if the intercept is constrained. And this makes sense if you define R squared as -   $$R^2 = 1-\frac{SSE}{SST}$$  One says $SSE&gt;SST$. But then,  $$SST = SSA + SSE $$ Total Sum of squares  = Sum of squared errors + Sum of squared residual. And with this we get -  $$R^2 = \frac{SSA}{SST}$$ And now it is hard to imagine how $R^2$ can be negative. Aren't SSA and SST >0 always? Get total height of webView's content using Javascript Is the notorious $n^2 + n + 41$ prime generator the last of its type? Is there ever a right time to upgrade to full frame camera body? Context  I've been shooting with an a6000 (APS_C mirrorless) and I plan to move on up to full frame, preferably mirrorless as well. I'm debating on when to upgrade, and probably don't plan to buy until next year.  I know I'll need to buy new full frame lens.  Question  Is there a "right" time to buy camera bodies, both mirrorless in my case as well as DSLRs? (I've seen the a7rII and like it but there might also be an a9 looming.) I feel that this is like smartphones in which the best time to buy is now as you might always be waiting until the next upgrade.   Related, are full frame bodies discounted during the holiday season or is that limited only to entry level bodies and older full frame bodies?  Related Add a new repository to software sources Greatest comeback in 2nd leg match How to integrate OpenCV Manager in Android App Why can you see virtual images? Print escaped representation of a str Is $0$ a natural number? Is there a consensus in the mathematical community, or some accepted authority, to determine whether zero should be classified as a natural number?  It seems as though formerly $0$ was considered in the set of natural numbers, but now it seems more common to see definitions saying that the natural numbers are precisely the positive integers. This is a canonical question   How do I jailbreak an iPhone or iPad (to install a package manager like Cydia or Sileo for tweaks) on:   iOS/iPadOS 13 iOS 12 iOS 11 iOS 10 iOS 9 iOS 8 Does League of Legends have a tournament that is recognized as the 'Most Important'? At  I've read that being $\sin(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^n}{(2n+1)!}x^{2n+1}$ by using  we get $\sin'(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(2n+1) \frac{(-1)^n}{(2n+1)!}x^{2n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^n}{(2n)!}x^{2n}=\cos(x)$ but the page  says that if $f(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_n(x-a)^n$ then inside the radius of convergence of the power series we have $f'(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}nc_n(x-a)^{n-1}$ so shouldn't it be $\sin'(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(2n+1)\frac{(-1)^n}{(2n+1)!}x^{2n+1-1}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^n}{(2n)!}x^{2n}$?  Now I understand that this last result has a missing term due to the index of the series being $1$ and not $0$ but being the $1$ mandatory because of the above theorem and since trying to shift index doesn't help (we get $\sin'(x)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{(2n+2)!}x^{2n+2}$) how can the result that ProofWiki shows be rigorously justified?   (I mean, I think we can't just say "oh, there's a missing term!" after having applied the theorem and magically shift the index of the series to obtain the desired result)