I have two tables   table1  |---------------------|------------------|------------------| |      student_id     |   studentname    |     parentid     | |---------------------|------------------|------------------| |          1          |       Kobe       |        1         | |---------------------|------------------|------------------| |---------------------|------------------|------------------| |          2          |      Lebron      |        1         | |---------------------|------------------|------------------|   table2 |---------------------|------------------| |       parentid      |    parentname    |    |---------------------|------------------| |          1          |      Jordan      | |---------------------|------------------|   I want to select an output like this   result |---------------------|------------------|------------------|----------------  -- |       parentid      |    parentname    |    childrenid    |  childrenname |---------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------ |          1          |      Jordan      |     1,2          |  Kobe,Jordan |---------------------|------------------|------------------|------------------   is this possible to happen? thanks in advance I already use this query but the rows is duplicating   select * from table2 left join table1 ON table1.parentid = table2.parentid
Using MySQL, I can do something like:  SELECT hobbies FROM peoples_hobbies WHERE person_id = 5;   My Output:  shopping fishing coding   but instead I just want 1 row, 1 col:  Expected Output:  shopping, fishing, coding   The reason is that I'm selecting multiple values from multiple tables, and after all the joins I've got a lot more rows than I'd like.  I've looked for a function on  and it doesn't look like the CONCAT or CONCAT_WS functions accept result sets.  So does anyone here know how to do this?
$P[X=x]=0$ when $X$ is continuous variable WoeUSB Error Code 256 with NTFS formatted USB Hi I would like to know whether the trace of the inverse of a symmetric positive definite matrix $\mathrm{trace}(S^{-1})$ is convex.  Actually I know that the trace of a symmetric positive definite matrix $S\in M_{m,m}$ is convex since we can find $B\in M_{n,m}$ such that $S=B^T\times B$ then we can write the trace as the sum of scalar quadratic forms, i.e. $\mathrm{trace}(S)=\mathrm{trace}(B^T\times B)=\sum_{j=1}^mb_j^T\times b_j$ where $b_j$ is the $j^{th}$ column of $B$.  for instance if we have  $trace([\begin{array}{cc} 1 &amp; 2  \\ 3 &amp; 4  \\ \end{array}] \times [\begin{array}{cc} 1 &amp; 3  \\ 2 &amp; 4  \\ \end{array}])= [\begin{array}{cc} 1 &amp; 2  \\ \end{array}]\times [\begin{array}{c} 1   \\ 2   \\ \end{array}]+ [\begin{array}{cc} 3 &amp; 4  \\ \end{array}]\times [\begin{array}{c} 3   \\ 4   \\ \end{array}]=30$  And so I wonder if $\mathrm{trace}(S^{-1})$ is convex too.. Fastest, surest way to erase a hard drive? What do solid/striped lines on a wire indicate? What do solid or dashed lines on a wire indicate?  Is there a difference between the solid and dashed indicators? Applying MVT and IVT (?) to show something about f'''? (edit: actually, Taylor's Theorem using Lagrange remainder) $P(x) = 0$ is a polynomial equation having at least one integer root, where $P(x)$ is a polynomial of degree five and having integer coefficients.  If $P(2) = 3$ and $P(10)= 11$, then prove that the equation $P(x) = 0$ has exactly one integer root.  I tried by assuming a fifth degree polynomial but got stuck after that.  The question was asked by my friend. In which situations is it OK to omit articles in short sentences? Recently, in many new online software I often see that developers omit articles in short sentences, especially on action buttons or tooltips.     For instance: "Add new task" (not "Add a new task"), "Create project" (not "Create a project"), but often in the same software I can see "Make a copy". What are situations it can be justified? Unable to get force:inputField or force:outputField to render inside other markup in Lightning Component when used in Lightning Experience Why's &quot;what's up&quot; used as greeting among young people? It sounds like asking &quot;what is up there&quot;?  A: What's up? B: The sky. Why is the change in Hamiltonian for an active infinitesimal canonical transformation defined the way it is? I'm trying to understand infinitesimal canonical transformations and conservation theorems (section 9.6 Goldstein ed3). My specific problem is with understanding eq 9.104,         $\partial H = H(B) - K(A^{'}) $, where $\partial H$ represents the change in the hamiltonian under an infinitesimal canonical transformation (from the active view point ofc). The issue only arises for generating functions that explicitly depend on time.  Here's what I've thought of so far. I understand what $K$ is from the passive viewpoint (or so I think), its the hamiltonian that would furnish Hamilton's equations for the transformed variables $Q=q+ \delta q$ and $P = p + \delta p$. In the specific case of the generating function being a time dependent hamiltonian, $K = H + \delta t \frac{\partial H}{\partial t} = H + \delta t\dot H$, which makes sense because once you transform the variables to what they'll be in time $\delta t$, you'll also need to add on a term that comes from the Hamiltonian being at a later time $t+ \delta t$.   In the book, this is explained as a transformation depending on time changes the hamiltonian, so $H(A) \rightarrow K(A^{'}) $. Which I sorta get. But why not for $H(B)$? And what about the case when the Hamiltonian is time dependent and it is the generating function? Is $H(B)$ at a later time then?   Note: $A$ represents the original variables, $B$ is the transformed variables in the active sense, so in the same phase space as $A$, and $A^{'}$ is the same point as A but in the transformed phase space (passive). When would I use a voltage regulator vs voltage divider? When would you use a voltage regulator vs a resistor voltage divider?  Are there any uses for which a resistor divider is particularly bad? `testl` eax against eax? I am trying to understand some assembly.  The assembly as follows, I am interested in the testl line:  000319df  8b4508        movl   0x08(%ebp), %eax   000319e2  8b4004        movl   0x04(%eax), %eax   000319e5  85c0          testl  %eax, %eax   000319e7  7407          je     0x000319f0     I am trying to understand that point of testl between %eax and %eax? I think the specifics of what this code isn't important, I am just trying to understand the test with itself - wouldn't the value always be true? Changing trains in Lille - what's the transfer with luggage between Lille Europe and Lille Flanders stations like? Lille has two main train stations, Lille Europe and Lille Flanders. (Gare de Marchandises Saint-Saveur is no longer a station, and instead hosts art exhibitions and the like). Lille Europe is the new station on the high speed lines between London / Paris / Brussels, while Lille Flanders is the original station now used for a mixture of local and high speed trains.  For some rail journeys, changing trains in Lille is the best option (avoiding having to cross Paris to change trains), and for others it's the only option. Sometimes you get lucky and both trains use the same station in Lille, but not all.  For the cases when you find yourself needing to change between Lille Flanders and Lille Europe stations, what's the connection like? Does it take long? Is it outside / inside? Is it a faff with luggage, or is there a step-free route for most of it? Are you best to walk, or take public transport? And a lower concern, is there anything interesting to see of the town during the transfer? t-test or z-test: assume normality or s≈σ? Let's say I have a large sample ($n&gt;30$) with mean $\bar{X}$ and standard deviation $S$. I can calculate only: $T=\frac{\bar{X}-\mu}{S/\sqrt{n}}$.  If I want to use t-test for a hypothesis, then I have to assume normality of the population. If I want to use z-test for a hypothesis, then I have to assume that $\boldsymbol{s\approx\sigma}$.  What is the less important assumption? What test should I do? Should I do t-test, z-test or doesn't matter? Following my question , I am wondering if there are strong views for or against the use of standard deviation to detect outliers (e.g. any datapoint that is more than 2 standard deviation is an outlier).  I know this is dependent on the context of the study, for instance a data point, 48kg, will certainly be an outlier in a study of babies' weight but not in a study of adults' weight.  Outliers are the result of a number of factors such as data entry mistakes. In my case, these processes are robust.   I guess the question I am asking is: Is using standard deviation a sound method for detecting outliers? In general, when can I omit that from a sentence?   Can I omit that (emphasized) in sentence (2) below?        We say that such algorithms handle concept drift and can learn from time-changing data streams.   When the statistical properties of the target variable change, we say that concept drift has occurred.   She told me that some of her classmates failed.      To me, sentences (1) and (3) sound better without that. If I omit that from (2), it just doesn't sound right when I read it out loud. (I should point out I'm not a native speaker.)  How do you decide when to omit it? Is it just a matter of taste? (I know that is sometimes mandatory.)  Can you think of sentences that "sound better" with that? Can you think of sentences that "sound better" without that? Can you think of a few sentences where it is wrong to omit that? How to reset Canon 70D WiFi? I need a number of different full-page DOM samples for my qUnit test suite A story about a guy who helped humanity by being held in a prison I remember a story I have read buy could not remember the author the name or anything apart from the basic plot. The story is about some future where humanity has to fight with some aliens (not 100% sure). The story tells about a guy who was some kind of activist and who was in a prison two or more times and somehow helped humanity by being held in a prison (can't remember details). I think the story starts by saying that there is a statue in his honor that is not very well known but he did more to help humanity than famous politicians.   The story is most likely written by some famous English-speaking author, though I read it in a translation.