Let $p,q$ be prime numbers , find all the solutions to the congruence $x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{pq}$ Attempt: $$x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{pq} \Longrightarrow \cases {x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{p}\\x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{q}} $$ For $\pmod{p}$ $$x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{p} \Longrightarrow x(x-(p+q))\equiv 0 \pmod{p}$$ Because $p$ is prime number then  we can write : $$x\equiv 0 \pmod{p}\space\space\space(1)$$ and $$x\equiv (p+q) \pmod{p}\Longrightarrow x\equiv q \pmod{p}\space\space\space(2)$$ For $\pmod{q}$ $$x^2\equiv (p+q)x \pmod{q} \Longrightarrow x(x-(p+q))\equiv 0 \pmod{q}$$ Because $q$ is prime number then  we can write : $$x\equiv 0 \pmod{q}\space\space\space(3)$$ and $$x\equiv (p+q) \pmod{q}\Longrightarrow x\equiv p \pmod{q}\space\space\space(4)$$ Now, we can say because $(1)$ and $(3)$ that $x\equiv 0 \pmod{pq}$. There are more solutions using $(2)$ and $(4)$ but I cannot see a legal way to solve them. Edit: note that $p,q$ can(not must) be equal to one another, which I think is another case for a solution.
Solve $x^2+5x+6 \equiv 187 \mod 187$ Solution $$x^2+5x+6 \equiv 187 \mod 187$$ $$ (x+\frac{5}{2})^2 \equiv \frac{1}{4}$$ $$ 4(x+\frac{5}{2})^2 \equiv 1$$ $$ y:= x+\frac{5}{2} $$ $$ 4y^2 \equiv 1 \mod 11 \wedge 4y^2 \equiv 1 \mod 17  $$ $$ ( 2y \equiv 1 \mod 11 \vee 2y \equiv 10 \mod 11 ) \wedge ( 2y \equiv 1 \mod 17  \vee 2y \equiv 13 \mod 17)  $$ $$ ( y \equiv 6 \mod 11 \vee y \equiv 5 \mod 11 ) \wedge ( y \equiv 9 \mod 17  \vee y \equiv 15 \mod 17)  $$ Combining that from CRT I got: $$ y \in \left\{49, 60,83,94 \right\} $$ and for example: $$ x+\frac{5}{2}  \equiv 94 \mod 187$$ $$ 2x  \equiv 183 \mod 187$$ some calculus and get... $$x \equiv 185 $$ And the same thing for each other case. Question Is there any faster (or smarter) way to solve equations like that?
I have a front end module that generates an (ECG) signal that varies from +/-2.5 V. I want to shift this signal to 0 - 5V. What is the best way to do this? Would a summing amplifier like the below circuit good enough? With R1 = R2 and V1 = 2.5V, V2 = my signal, V3 = V4 = GND There is a nice property of normal spaces, namely, closed disjoint subsets can be separated by continuous functions into $\mathbb R$.   Then you ask yourself, what about Hausdorff spaces?, are all Hausdorff spaces completely Hausdorff?   Well, if we choose our separating space $X$, that is, the space such that for any Hausdorff $Y$ and any distinct $a,b\in Y$ there is some continuous $f:Y\rightarrow X$ with $f(a)\neq f(b)$, to be completely regular and Hausdorff, this cannot happen by an example of E. Hewitt, Hewitt’s Condensed Corkscrew, call it $\mathbb H$; as any continuous function from $\mathbb H$ into $\mathbb R$ is constant, and any Hausdorff completely regular space $X$ can be embedded into a product of closed intervals $\prod_{i\in I}[0,1]$, and thus any continuous $f:\mathbb H\rightarrow X\subseteq \prod_{i\in I}[0,1]$ is constant, as each $\pi_i\circ f$ is constant, so our candidate to be the separating space $X$ cannot even be $[0,1]$.  My question is, does there exist a Hausdorff space $X$ such that for all Hausdorff spaces $Y$, and any distinct $a,b\in Y$ there exists a continuous $f:Y\to X$ such that $f(a)\neq f(b)$?  Thanks. How to remove zsh alias? How to use d3.min and d3.max within a d3.json command Difficult variation of the committee problem How to tell what method was used to log in (Password vs. Keyfile) from the bashrc Sanity check question about correlation between log-normal random variables Recently I came across the following result in a paper, which I can't seem to find right.  Anyway the authors had cited  by Johnson &amp; Kotz, page 20 as the source. Since I do not have access to this book I am unable to check on the derivation of this result. I was hoping someone could shed some light on how to prove this.  Let $X$ and $Y$ denote a pair of bivariate log normal random variables with their means and variances given by the ordered pairs $(\zeta_{X}, \eta_{X})$ and $(\zeta_{Y}, \eta_{Y})$ and with correlation coefficient $\rho_{(X, Y)}$, derived from the bivariate normal with marginal distributions having parameters $(\xi_{X}, \nu_{X}^2)$ and $(\xi_{Y}, \nu_{Y}^2)$ and correlation coefficient $\rho_{N}$.  The expression for $\rho_{(X, Y)}$ is given as \begin{equation} \rho_{(X, Y)} = \dfrac{\mathrm e^{(\rho_{N} \nu_{X} \nu_{Y})} - 1}{\sqrt {(\mathrm e^{\nu_{X}^2} - 1)(\mathrm e^{\nu_{Y}^2} - 1)}} \end{equation}  The below is a manipulation I came up with, any error in that would be completely mine.  Upon rearranging we get \begin{equation}\begin{aligned} \rho_N &amp;= \dfrac{\ln (1 + \rho_{(X, Y)} \sqrt {(\mathrm e^{\nu_{X}^2} - 1)(\mathrm e^{\nu_{Y}^2} - 1)})}{\nu_{X}\nu_{Y}}\\ &amp;= \dfrac{\ln (1 + \rho_{(X, Y)} \frac{\eta_{X}\eta_{Y}}{\zeta{X}\zeta{Y}})}{\sqrt {\ln ((\frac{\eta_{X}}{\zeta_{X}})^2 + 1)\ln ((\frac{\eta_{Y}}{\zeta_{Y}})^2 + 1)}}. \end{aligned} \end{equation}  I am very interested in learning if this result would hold true between $X$ and $Y$'s correlations if we had a quad-variate situation as in there were 2 more random variables which are also correlated with $X$ and $Y$ would this result still be true ? I suspect it should be, but I am newbie and due to lack of a credible source I was wondering if some one would be kind to confirm it. Wirtinger Inequality: $\int_0^1 f'^2 \geq \pi^2 \int_0^1 f^2 $ I have a  basic question  Let $f$ be a $\mathcal{C}^1$  map  from  $[0,1]$ into $\mathbb{R}$ vanishing in $0$ and $1$. I want to prove that   $$\int_0^1 f'^2 \geq \pi^2 \int_0^1 f^2 $$  and to see when we have equality. How do I start Nautilus as root? I've got a problem with Nautilus in Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.  When I run the command gksu nautilus /, the password ask box appears and I type my super-user password, then the password box disappears and Nautilus is not opened.  When I try to open Nautilus as a normal user in with the command nautilus, the folder is opened.  When I try in terminal   $ sudo nautilus   I got the following error  $ sudo nautilus /  ** (nautilus:8523): WARNING **: Command line `dbus-launch --autolaunch=2c8ce9b7da2257c2609b749700000007 --binary-syntax --close-stderr' exited with non-zero exit status 1: Autolaunch error: X11 initialization failed.\n Could not parse arguments: Cannot open display:   How can I fix this error? I have a BA degree in Biochemistry.  I worked at a research lab for 5 yrs before I quit my job to be a stay at home.  Now I want to change my career and get into the field of QA.  I don't have much knowledge as to what the best way is to get into this field.  I cant afford to take online courses, so I want to self teach it to me.  Any suggestions and help would be greatly appreciated. I noticed that I have three warnings when I submitted my Sitemap. They all say this:      When we tested a sample of URLs from your Sitemap, we found that some   URLs redirect to other locations. We recommend that your Sitemap   contain URLs that point to the final destination (the redirect target)   instead of redirecting to another URL.   I'd like to try and resolve this issues but I'm not sure what to do.  Sitemap url for reference: Prove that the product of a non-zero rational and irrational number is irrational. Seem to have lost 4 Silver badges and 10 Bronze badges Why would spacetime curvature cause gravity? It is fine to say that for an object flying past a massive object, the spacetime is curved by the massive object, and so the object flying past follows the curved path of the geodesic, so it "appears" to be experiencing gravitational acceleration. Do we also say along with it, that the object flying past in reality exeriences NO attraction force towards the massive object? Is it just following the spacetime geodesic curve while experiencing NO attractive force?  Now come to the other issue: Supposing two objects are at rest relative to each other, ie they are not following any spacetime geodesic. Then why will they experience gravitational attraction towards each other? E.g. why will an apple fall to earth? Why won't it sit there in its original position high above the earth? How does the curvature of spacetime cause it to experience an attraction force towards the earth, and why would we need to exert a force in reverse direction to prevent it from falling? How does the curvature of spacetime cause this?  When the apple was detatched from the branch of the tree, it was stationary, so it did not have to follow any geodesic curve. So we cannot just say that it fell to earth because its geodesic curve passed through the earth. Why did the spacetime curvature cause it to start moving in the first place? I have just started studying implication in mathematics. So, you'll probably have an idea of where my confusion lies right from the get go.  In the truth table, where $A \implies B$ we obtain this result:  A   B   T/F ___________ T | T | T T | F | F F | T | T F | F | T   Now, my confusion here is regarding why $A\implies B$ given A is false, and B true. The others I understand. The first and last one are obvious, the second one implies, to me anyway, that given A implies B, the truth of B rests upon the truth of A, B is false, A is True, which cannot be, thus not B given A is false.  Now... then, why is B true despite the fact that A is false? Or rather, why is the statement B given not A, True. The truth of B is implied from the truth of A, but A is a false statement. So it's very contradictory that this may be, and in fact, if you go through a real life example, you would find that the third statement seems to be false.  Say $A$ is the statement that it is dark outside, and $B$ the statement that the sun is not on our side of the earth. If it is not dark outside, than stating that the sun is on the other side of the planet must be wrong (in my example i'm going to claim that the sun is the only light source).  Side note:  I just had a thought, if A is false, does that mean you can conclude... mmm, whatever? I mean, B is implied via the truth of A, if A is false, B is NOT implied, but then B could be EITHER true or false, I suppose. Is this correct?  However, would that not mean that A does not imply anything when false. Would that not set the 3rd and 4th statement to be undefined? Disable storage of invisible files "._" on my cfs or smb network storage Time complexity of nested for-loop I need to calculate the time complexity of the following code:  for (i = 1; i &lt;= n; i++) {   for(j = 1; j &lt;= i; j++)   {    // Some code   } }   Is it O(n^2)? I recently came across an IE7 only bug that I thought I'd share so when I come to this site 6 months from now to figure out the same thing, I'll have it on hand.   I believe the easiest way to recreate this bug would be the following html in a page with a declared doctype (it works correctly in "quirks mode" / no-doctype):  &lt;div style="overflow: auto; height: 150px;"&gt;     &lt;div style="position: relative;"&gt;[...]&lt;/div&gt; &lt;/div&gt;   In IE7, the outer div is a fixed size and the inner div is relatively positioned and contains more content (assuming the inner div causes an overflow). In all other browsers, this seems to work as expected.  Screenshot: Is there an easy way to calculate the residue at one of the poles of a rational expression of the form $\frac{1}{1+z^n}$?  I end up having to add a bunch of polar-form complex numbers in the denominator which I have no idea how to do except to convert them to rectangular coordinates, which becomes really messy.  I feel like there ought to be simple pattern/rule for such a canonical expression. LaTeXiT is cropping the pdf I am using LaTeXiT (pierre chachatelier, www.chachatelier.fr) - latex equation editor for Powerpoint for mac.  It's producing pdf that appear to be "cropped" on top (see attached) - I've tried already with changing the "margins" option (Preferences>General) but unsuccessfully - don't think that's the problem.   Any hint?   Thanks