The symbol I'm referring to is a standard equal sign with a dot right above it. I've looked around, but cannot seem to find the LaTeX code for the symbol used by Sakuri to represent operators in his Quantum Mechanics text.   Thanks!
I know what my symbol or character looks like, but I don't know what the command is or which math alphabet it came from. How do I go about finding this out?
Difference between pts and tty If $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}A$ is not connected then there is a nontrivial idempotent Effect of linear terms on a QFT I was told when first learning QFT that linear terms in the Lagrangian are harmless and we can essentially just ignore them. However, I've recently seen in the linear sigma model, \begin{equation}  {\cal L} = \frac{1}{2} \partial _\mu \phi _i \partial ^\mu \phi _i - \frac{m ^2 }{2} \phi _i \phi _i  - \frac{ \lambda }{ 4} ( \phi _i \phi _i ) ^2  \end{equation}  with $m ^2 =-\mu^2 &gt; 0$, adding a linear term in one of the fields $\phi_N$, does change the final results as you no longer have Goldstone bosons (since the $O(N)$ symmetry is broken to begin with).   Are there any other effects of linear terms that we should keep in mind or is this the only exception of the "forget about linear terms" rule? Pivot in SQL 2008 R2 Delete duplicate records in SQL Server? Where do I find the current C or C++ standard documents? Two particles with initial positions and velocities $r_1,v_1$ and $r_2,v_2$ are interacting by the inverse square law (with G=1), so that  $$ {d^2r_1\over dt^2} = - { m_2(r_1-r_2)\over |r_1-r_2|^3} $$ $$ {d^2r_2\over dt^2} = - { m_1(r_2-r_1)\over |r_1-r_2|^3} $$  (the inverse square law along the line of separation). What is the complete solution of these differential equations? What is the position of the two objects as a function of time?  After reading a lot on Wikipedia, I've come to the definition of center of mass and relative coordinates:   $$R(t) ~=~ \frac{m_1 r_1 + m_2 r_2}{m_1+m_2}$$  $$\ddot{r}(t) r(t)^2 ~=~ (m_1+m_2)G$$  Where $R$ is the center of mass, and $r$ is the displacement between the particles... Is this correct? How do I proceed to solve the differential equation? Is temperature a Lorentz invariant in relativity? How can I fix an out-of-focus blurred photo in Photoshop? How can I fix this picture?  Somebody else took this picture and well he wasn't able to do it very well, and it's blurred.    I have photoshop bash: alias: alias: not found Prove: $|a\sin x+b \cos x|\leq \sqrt{a^2+b^2}$ How do you get assembler output from C/C++ source in gcc? How does one do this?  If I want to analyze how something is getting compiled, how would I get the emitted assembly code? Can the off-regional pokémon hatch from eggs? Some people claim you can get the pokémon that are not in your region from eggs. Is this only a rumour or actually true? I've seen off-regional pokémon in gyms nearby but I can't rule out that the owner had been abroad or maybe even used location spoofing. In my book, it proves that an infinite subset of a coutnable set is countable. But not all the details are filled in, and I've tried to fill in all the details below. Could someone tell me if what I wrote below is valid?  Let $S$ be an infinite subset of a countable set $T$. Since $T$ is countable, there exists a bijection $f: \mathbb{N} \rightarrow T$. And $S \subseteq T = \{ f(n) \ | \ n \in \mathbb{N} \}$. Let $n_{1}$ be the smallest positive integer such that $f(n_{1}) \in S$. And continue where $n_{k}$ is the smallest positive integer greater than $n_{k-1}$ such that $f(n_{k}) \in S$. And because $S$ is infinite, we continue forever. Now consider the function $\beta : \mathbb{N} \rightarrow S$ which sends $k \rightarrow f(n_{k})$.   So in order for $S$ to be countable, $\beta$ would have to be a bijection. $\beta$ is injective since if $f(n_{k}) = f(n_{j})$, then $n_{k} = n_{j}$ because $f$ is injective. We also can conclude $k = j$ because the various $n_{i}$ chosen were strictly increasing.   Edit: $\beta$ also needs to be surjective. So for every $r \in S$ there exists a $q \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\beta(q) = f(n_{q}) = r$. We know that $f^{-1}(r) \in \{n_{1}, n_{2}, ..., n_{k} ... \}$, so we can let $f^{-1}(r) = n_{d}$. Thus $\beta(d) = f(n_{d}) = r$. Taylor's polynomial uniqueness proof - why are these limits inferable? So I'm viewing a short proof on the uniqueness of Taylor polynomials.     Uniqueness of Taylor polynomial:   Let $f:]a,b,[ \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ $n$ times continuously   differentiable and $x_0 \in ]a,b,[$. If $p$ is $n$th degree polynomial   function for which       $$f(x)-p(x)=o(|x-x_0|^n), \space \text{when} \space x \rightarrow x_0$$  then      $$p(x)=T_{n, x_0} f(x)$$   Proof starts like:  $$\frac{p(x)-T_{n, x_0}f(x)}{(x-x_0)^n} = \frac{p(x)-f(x)}{(x-x_0)^n}+\frac{f(x)-T_{n, x_0}f(x)}{(x-x_0)^n}$$  then   $$\frac{p(x)-f(x)}{(x-x_0)^n} \rightarrow 0 \space, when \space x-x_0 \rightarrow 0$$  $$\frac{f(x)-T_{n, x_0}f(x)}{(x-x_0)^n} \rightarrow 0 \space, when \space x-x_0 \rightarrow 0$$  Now my problem is, how can one actually say that the above approach $0$ if the denominator approaches $0$? Pointwise convergence of $h_n(x) = x^{1+\frac{1}{2n-1}}$ Okay, maybe I'm missing something obvious but consider $h_n(x) = x^{ 1+ \frac{1}{2n-1}}$ on the set $[-1,1]$. Now consider a fixed $x \in [-1,1]$, we have:  $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} h_n(x) = x \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x^\frac{1}{2n-1} = x$$  But my book says it's $|x|$? Why? Show the number of up-votes and down-votes on the mobile site theme What is time dilation really? Question is :  Suppose $X$ is a topological space of infinite cardinality which is homeomorphic to $X\times X$. Then which of the following is true:   $X$ is not connected. $X$ is not compact $X$ is not homeomorphic to a subset of $\mathbb{R}$ None of the above.   I guess first two options are false.  We do have possibility that product of two connected spaces is connected.  So, $X\times X$ is connected if $X$ is connected. So I guess there is no problem.  We do have possibility that product of two compact spaces is compact.  So, $X\times X$ is compact if $X$ is compact. So I guess there is no problem.  I understand that this is not the proof to exclude first two options but I guess the chance is more for them to be false.  So, only thing I have problem with is third option.  I could do nothing for that third option..  I would be thankful if some one can help me out to clear this.  Thank you :) Is it Safe to Delete Files From /var/tmp?