Are the following expressions are equal?   $$\sqrt{x^2}=(\sqrt{x})^2=|x|$$  As there both are: $$x^\frac{2}{2}=x^1$$
According to my logic,  $$\large\sqrt{x^2} = x^{2\times \frac{1}{2}} = x = x^{\frac{1}{2}\times 2}={(\sqrt{x})}^2$$  But when I look at the graphs of these guys, they're totally different.  Edit: Complex answers are okay, if you know what I mean.
I want to show that for each $n \in \mathbb N$ it holds that $$\sum_{k = 0}^\infty \frac{n^k}{k!} \vert k - n \vert = 2n \frac{n^n}{n!}.$$ But I have absolutely no idea how to do that. I tried to split the series like this:  $$\sum_{k = 0}^\infty \frac{n^k}{k!} \vert k - n \vert = \sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} \frac{n^k}{k!}(n - k) + \sum_{k = n + 1}^\infty \frac{n^k}{k!} (k - n)$$ Now I want to show that $\sum_{k = 0}^{n - 1} \frac{n^k}{k!}(n - k) = \sum_{k = n + 1}^\infty \frac{n^k}{k!} (k - n) = n \frac{n^n}{n!}$ holds. But I got no idea how to achieve that. I tried to use induction but things became pretty messy and I don't think it will work like that. On the other hand I got the idea that it might have to do with $\exp$ or binomial coefficients but I don't see where I can facilitate that. I would appreciate some hints :) Copy/duplicate database without using mysqldump What does this cryptic Bash command mean? I was reading Ubuntu Forum's warning about malicious commands and found this interesting gem:  :(){ :|:&amp; };: WARNING: The above code will crash your machine unless you have strict proc limits in place (which you probably don't) prompting a hard restart. Consider this code similar to running sudo rm -rf /.  But what does that mean? Even with my programming experience I've never seen a command that cryptic that's not assembly language. Is there an easy way to show which spheres can be Lie groups? Theory behind partial least squares regression Can anyone recommend a good exposition of the theory behind partial least squares regression (available online) for someone who understands SVD and PCA?  I have looked at many sources online and have not found anything that had the right combination of rigor and accessibility.    I have looked into The Elements of Statistical Learning, which was suggested in a comment on a question asked on Cross Validated, , but I don't think that this reference does the topic justice (it's too brief to do so, and doesn't provide much theory on the subject).  From what I've read, PLS exploits linear combinations of the predictor variables, $z_i=X \varphi_i$ that maximize the covariance $ y^Tz_i $ subject to the constraints $\|\varphi_i\|=1$ and $z_i^Tz_j=0$ if $i \neq j$, where the $\varphi_i$ are chosen iteratively, in the order in which they maximize the covariance.  But even after all I've read, I'm still uncertain whether that is true, and if so, how the method is executed. Brackets in if condition: why am I getting syntax errors without whitespace? I am using the below script to move two days back when script runs at starting two days of the year and also check first and second days of every month and move two days back. if [$month=&quot;01&quot;] &amp;&amp; [$day=&quot;01&quot;]; then         date=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$last_year&quot;         fulldate=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$last_year&quot; else         if [$month=&quot;01&quot;] &amp;&amp; [$day=&quot;02&quot;]; then                 date=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$last_year&quot;                 fulldate=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$last_year&quot;         else                 if [ $day = &quot;01&quot; ]; then                         date=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$year&quot;                         fulldate=&quot;$year$last_month$yes_day&quot;                 else                         if [ $day = &quot;02&quot; ]; then                                 date=&quot;$last_month/$yes_day/$year&quot;                                 fulldate=&quot;$year$last_month$yes_day&quot;                         else                                 date=&quot;$month/$yes_day/$year&quot;                                 fulldate=&quot;$year$month$yes_day&quot;                         fi                 fi         fi fi  But my bad am getting the below error message Etime_script.sh: line 19: [06=01]: command not found Etime_script.sh: line 24: [06=01]: command not found I know it's not possible to install a 32-bit driver in the traditional way, but I really cannot find a 64-bit driver for my memory card reader. Is there anyway I can somehow use this device with a 32-bit driver on a 64-bit Windows 7 installation?  I was thinking there might be a way to run a device in compatibility mode? Possibly even have a 32-bit device layer emulator or something?  I'm interested in any method to get this device up and running. How can I display the current branch and folder path in terminal? Why is $1^{\infty}$ considered to be an indeterminate form From : In calculus and other branches of mathematical analysis, an indeterminate form is an algebraic expression obtained in the context of limits. Limits involving algebraic operations are often performed by replacing subexpressions by their limits; if the expression obtained after this substitution does not give enough information to determine the original limit, it is known as an indeterminate form.    The indeterminate forms include $0^{0},\frac{0}{0},(\infty - \infty),1^{\infty}, \ \text{etc}\cdots$   My question is can anyone give me a nice explanation of why $1^{\infty}$ is considered to be an indeterminate form? Because, i don't see any justification of this fact. I am still perplexed. Why: a relative adverb, a conjunction ... or both? I am not familiar with the idea that an adverb can function as a conjunction at the same time. Here are a couple of sentences that are confusing me.     This is the reason why she left him.   ...and     He was transferred to New York, where he was promoted to a higher level.   The  why, where, when, and how seem to introduce a clause. Therefore, can they also be called conjunctions? If yes, would I be right in assuming that relative adverbs can function as conjunctions at the same time? Previous questions confirmed that Hex can last through multiple encounters (assuming my warlock's concentration doesn't get broken by a club to the head or the like) and at higher levels even through a short rest.   My question is how targeting Hex works when trying to keep it up for extended periods of time.   Can I just cast it on nothing and keep it up until a valid target presents itself or is an initial valid target required?   Then later, does changing the target of the Hex require that the original target is brought to 0 HP?   Once the initial target dies does the spell stay active even if I don't immediately choose a new target?  My suspicion from reading the spell is that it needs an initial target, but then from that point on I can just keep it up after that target dies until it either expires or a new target presents itself. Is this correct? Same e-mail user, different address? On Windows 7 can one make UAC on an admin account prompt for the password, just like a limited account? I am one of the very few who likes the security of UAC and so I have the UAC set to "Always Notify" on my Admin account. But I would be even happier if the system would prompt me for a password, when notifying me.  I can get what I want by adding a second non-admin user and using that account.  But somehow it seems wasteful to have two accounts set up when I will always use the non-admin account day-to-day.  So I am wondering if there is any setting that would cause an Admin account to behave password-prompting-wise as a standard account? MLE for Uniform $(0,\theta)$ I am a bit confused about the derivation of MLE of Uniform$(0,\theta)$.  I understand that $L(\theta)={\theta}^{-n}$ is a decreasing function and to find the MLE we want to maximize the likelihood function.  What is confusing me is that if a function is decreasing, then wouldn't the function be maximized at the smallest input rather than the largest?  Thank you in advance for your help. 1.In classical mechanics, using Newton's laws, the ellipticity of orbits is derived. It is also said that the center of mass is at one of the foci.   2.Each body will orbit the center of the mass of the system.  My question is : Are the assumptions in 1 and 2 correct?   Follow up question : Assuming the distance from the centre of the mass to each body remains the same, do we have two bodies orbiting the centre of the mass of the system in an elliptical or circular orbit?   Finally : With elliptical orbits, if the heavier mass is supposed to be in one of the foci, if there is any significance to second focus, what is it? Is it a Lagrange point by any chance or does it have some other mathematical property? Is it possible to set start-up applications to initialize in certain workspaces? I'd like to not have to manually distribute my start-up applications across my numerous workspaces every time I boot up my machine. I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 .  Any Help ? I'll be generous and say it might be reasonable to assume that nature would tend to minimize, or maybe even maximize, the integral over time of $T-V$.  Okay, fine.  You write down the action functional, require that it be a minimum (or maximum), and arrive at the Euler-Lagrange equations.  Great.  But now you want these Euler-Lagrange equations to not just be derivable from the Principle of Least Action, but you want it to be equivalent to the Principle of Least Action.  After thinking about it for awhile, you realize that this implies that the Principle of Least Action isn't really the Principle of Least Action at all:  it's the "Principle of Stationary Action".  Maybe this is just me, but as generous as I may be, I will not grant you that it is "natural" to assume that nature tends to choose the path that is stationary point of the action functional.  Not to mention, it isn't even obvious that there is such a path, or if there is one, that it is unique.  But the problems don't stop there.  Even if you grant the "Principle of Stationary Action" as fundamentally and universally true, you realize that not all the equations of motions that you would like to have are derivable from this if you restrict yourself to a Lagrangian of the form $T-V$.  As far as I can tell, from here it's a matter of playing around until you get a Lagrangian that produces the equations of motion you want.  From my (perhaps naive point of view), there is nothing at all particularly natural (although I will admit, it is quite useful) about the formulation of classical mechanics this way.  Of course, this wouldn't be such a big deal if these classical ideas stayed with the classical physics, but these ideas are absolutely fundamental to how we think about things as modern as quantum field theory.  Could someone please convince me that there is something natural about the choice of the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics (I don't mean in comparison with the Hamiltonian formulation; I mean period), and in fact, that it is so natural that we would not even dare abandon these ideas? Tense change: previous actions on something that's currently true I'm describing a situation that happened in the past. To explain it, I want to use a description that is both true now and true when the situation happened.  Specifically, I want something like:     She touched me where my neck met my collarbone.   Since my neck is still attached to my collarbone (thankfully), I'm wondering if I shouldn't use the present tense here instead:     She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone.   Which is preferable, and why? Get the coordinates from ContourPlot and RegionPlot How do I write to NTFS drives in OS X?