Which sentence is correct:  Why don't you try to give up candy if you want to lose some weight? Why don't you try giving up candy if you want to lose some weight?
Are both try to save the file and try saving the file grammatically correct? If so, is there any difference in meaning?
How does the 2009 Star Trek film mesh with Enterprise canon? All of the events in the 2009 Star Trek movie would have taken place after the adventures of Captain Johnathan Archer and company.  So, unless J.J. Abrams and friends decide to completely hand-wave that bit of history as well, all of the events in Enterprise should (in theory) still be able to line up with this new timeline.  Are there any points of conflict in this?  How about any time-travel episodes in the Enterprise series which may have happened differently after the interventions of Nero?  Are there possible good explanations for such conflicts, or are there some which are irreconcilable?  NOTE:  I'm not arguing here whether or not ST2k9 is a part of Star Trek canon.  In fact, this question is specifically granting that it is.  I just want to know if there's any conflicts between the new movie and the existing Star Trek history that remains applicable to it. Please help me to prove this trigonometric equation.  $\cos \left( 36^\circ \right)-\cos \left( 72^\circ \right) = \frac{1}{2}$  Thank you. Electrostatics and tv screens Unable to uninstall Wine apps I recently ran the iTunes 10 installer in Wine and everything seemed to go well. Then, when I tried to run it, it would constantly crash/and the appearance would be glitchy. After looking at the Wine website, it turns out that iTunes 10 has a 'garbage' rating of Wine compatability.  Now I'm trying to remove/uninstall iTunes, QuickTime, and the other applications that come default with installing iTunes (such as Bonjour, etc.). However, when I run the 'uninstaller' that wine provides for the programs, it instead executes what appears to actually be the original installer! I've tried deleting all the configuration/data files in my Wine's file-system, but to no avail.  Any help is greatly appreciated!  Edit1: After re-running the uninstall process and then rebooting, the program (iTunes 10) still remained installed. According to the well ordering theorem "". Whenever we have a well ordering on a set, it is not difficult to construct a new well ordering with a largest element. My question is:     For a given infinite set, can we find a well ordering on it such that there is no largest element? Data defined label position for more than one scale in one layer I'm looking for a better labeling-solution for my projects. It seems to be difficult - but maybe I'm just blind?   My projects: I build  printed bike-hike-books. The main scale is 1:75k and there are a city scale of 10k and a overview scale of 200k. Because I like to have a "cartographic" quality of labels placements, I touch every single label and move it to it's best position. I have to do this for every single scale so my labeling columns for 3 scales look like this ('scale 1' stands for 10k 'scale 2' for 75k  and 'scale 3' for 200k):    But before I try to explain in detail, I build this simple Example-Project where you can see and test my (old) labeling solution for 3 scales:   Well, it is working but:    You need labeling columns for every scale  You need a layer for every scale   I'm looking for a much better solution without duplicate layers and tons of columns. I count on your creative minds!  EDIT: I added this two very dense map as examples:    There is only one single possible position for "St. Paulus Dom" and it's not any quadrant:   Every label has to be moved manually. Some of the labels are not in a quadrant. Story about astronauts who set off an alien warning beacon on the moon (or Mars?) This is a  about Hairpin NAT (Loopback NAT).   The generic form of this question is:  We have a network with clients, a server, and a NAT Router. There is port forwarding on the router to the server so some of it's services are available externally. We have DNS pointing to the external IP. Local network clients fail to connect, but external work.   Why does this fail? How can I create a unified naming scheme (DNS names which work both locally and externally)?   This question has answeres merged from multiple other questions. They originally referenced FreeBSD, D-Link, Microtik, and other equipment. They're all trying to solve the same problem however. After pacman update, pacsearch is no longer installed Can I have my iPhone play sound for MacBook? Say I am playing a video on my MacBook Pro, and I don't want to distract others with the sound. The problem is, I don't have a 3.5 mm Headphone or AirPods at my hand, but I have an iPhone 8 Plus and its EarPods with Lightning Connector. Can I play the sound from the video playing on macOS with the iPhone, preferably without connecting the iPhone to the Mac so that I can plug in the EarPods to the iPhone's socket?  This is basically the reverse of It's a standard result that given $X_1,\cdots ,X_n $ random sample from $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$, the random variable $$\frac{(n-1)S^2}{\sigma^2}$$ has a chi-square distribution with $(n-1)$ degrees of freedom, where $$S^2=\frac{1}{n-1}\sum^{n}_{i=1}(X_i-\bar{X})^2.$$ I would like help in proving the above result. Thanks. It can be proved that there are two irrational numbers $a$ and $b$ such that $a^b$ is rational (see ) and that for each irrational number $c$ there exists another irrational number $d$ such that $c^d$ is rational (see ).  My question is: Is there an irrational number $a$ such that $a^a$ is rational (and how could you prove that)? In Section 9 of Chapter 6, Lang constructrs for the first time a non-abelian extension as a splitting field $K$ of $X^n - a$ when the ground field $k$ does not contain primitive $n$-th roots of unity $\zeta_n$. He constructs an injective homomorphism of the Galois group $G(K/k)$ into the matrices of type   $$ M=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix} \quad \hbox{with}\ b\in \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} \quad \hbox{and} \quad d\in (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*,$$  where $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$ the multiplicative group of integers modulo n.  Afterwards, he states in Theorem 9.4 that if $n$ is an odd positive integer prime to the characterstic and $[k(\zeta_n):k]=\varphi(n)$ (i.e, the primitive roots of unity are not in the ground field), then the above homomorphism is, in fact, an isomorphism. Besides, the commutator group is $G(K/k(\zeta_n))$, so $k(\zeta_n)$ is the maximal abelian subextension of $K$.  Lang proves the theorem inductively over the number of prime factors in the decomposition of $n$ (i.e. if $n=9= 3\cdot 3$, then the proof "would take two steps" to complete). The induction start with $n$ prime is written clearly and I agree with it.   Now come the questions:   I do not understand Lang's argument to prove that the commutator subgroup is the subgroup $\begin{pmatrix}1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; 1\end{pmatrix}$, $b\in \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. What is this projection on the diagonal and how does one see that the factor group of the commutator group is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$?   By the way, direct computation of $x\, y\, x^{-1}\, y^{-1}$ for two arbitrary matrices $x=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b &amp; d \end{pmatrix}$, $y=\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ c &amp; e \end{pmatrix}$ yields a matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 1 &amp; 0 \\ b(1-e)+c(d-1) &amp; 1 \end{pmatrix}$. As $n$ is odd, $2 \in (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^*$, so taking $e=1$ and $d=2$, we indeed reconstruct the above-mentioned group.   The second (inductive) part of the proof is a complete mystery to me with virtually every sentence being a Theorem which needs an extra proof. Can someone give me some hints?   2.a. Lang writes $n=p\,m$ and takes $\alpha$ to be the root of $X^n-a$. It is clear that $\beta=\alpha^p$ is a root of $X^m -a$. Now comes the argument "By induction we can apply the theorem to $X^m-a$". I agree that we can apply it here but the result is that $K=k(\beta,\zeta_m)$ is the splitting field of $X^m-a$. In the diagram below, there appears $k(\beta,\zeta_n)$ out of nowhere.   2.b. Now Lang proceeds to apply the theorem on $X^p-\beta$ over $k(\beta)$. Bergman's "Companion" reminds to check that $[k(\beta,\zeta_p):k(\beta)]=\varphi(p)$ before applying the theorem and gives a hint "$[k(\zeta_p):k]$ and $[k(\beta):k]$ are relatively prime". I disagree with this hint. Take $n=21= m p$ where $m=3$ and $p=7$. Then $[k(\zeta_p):k]=\varphi(p)=p-1=6$ but $[k(\beta):k]=m=3$ and both are not co-prime. Can we apply the theorem here at all? Or if so what is the argument? If Bergman's argument is valid, where is the fault in my logic?  2.c. Even assuming that we can apply the theorem in 2.b., then we can say something about $k(\alpha, \zeta_p)$ and not $k(\alpha,\zeta_n)$. How do we proceed to checking everything Lang states in the last section of the proof (basically, everything after the diagram)?  EDIT: I have found the essentially same question Is it possible to open directories as administrator? I want to have a root privileges on some directories. How can I do this? MySQL string replace I want to prove this:  Prove that if $a \in \mathbb{Z}$ is divisible by $4$, then there exist $b$ and $c$ where $b,c \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $a = b^2 - c^2$  I want to prove this directily:  $4\mid a $,  $a\in \mathbb{Z} \implies \exists b,c \in \mathbb{Z}, \quad$ s.t. $a=b^2-c^2$  Let $k\in \mathbb{Z}$. Then $4=a\cdot k$ and $k$ can divide $4$. Hence,  $\frac{4}{k} =b^2 - c^2 = (b-c)(b+c) \implies \dfrac{4}{k\cdot(b-c)} = b+c$  Is this proof correct? Change the location of saved screenshot when screenshot taken by printscreen button in GNOME 3 I want to change the default location of "Save a screenshot to Pictures" to save it to Desktop.   If that is not possible, is there any other way to do it? I am using Ubuntu GNOME 17.04.  NOTE: I don't want to change the location with dconf-editor as it changes the location of screenshot applet and not of the shortcut I require. Let $\{f_n\}$ be a sequence of analytic functions on a region $\Omega$ with $|f_n| ≤ 1$ on $\Omega$. Let K be compact and contained in $\Omega$. Suppose $\{f_n\}$ converges at infinitely many points in K. Then is it true or false that $\{f_n\}$ necessarily converges at every point of $\Omega$? Windows 7 File Explorer search not working $C^1[a,b]$ is closed in $C[a,b]$