I'm looking for a technical term for using a noun as its own verb form where such usage is not extant. For example, using intellect as a verb (to intellect). Is there such a term? It doesn't seem to be a neologism or an example of metonymy.
This is in very common use on the internet. I just read this:     "[The] hotel employee walks in, I say "uh, puppy" and she just NOPEd the [heck] out of the room."   This is often done by adding 'd to the word.
“I do not know where … is” vs. “I do not know where is …” I have a product key for windows 8.1 (Single language edition or not that i can't remember). I have currently windows 10 pro installed.  I am planning to install windows 10 Home so i activate with windows 8.1 key.  So my question is will i be able to activate it if the Product Key is Windows 8.1 Single Language and i install Windows 10 Home(Multiple language edition) or vice versa. How do you find time period as a function of time for a simple pendulum that is in the form of a hollow sphere that is filled with mercury and there is a hole in the bottom through which the mercury is constantly falling at a fixed rate? I tried creating a function for the time period to check how it varies with the mass of mercury, but I had too many variables.   EDIT: This question was a concept based multiple choice question in my homework book. The option were time period becomes erratic, time period increases, time period decreases, time period first increases then decreases. Careers should allow me to add external (authored but not owned) GitHub projects under "other" Consistent, complete, and generalized description of the quantum harmonic oscillator Checking my understanding: $1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - ... = \frac{1}{2}$ I've recently run into a proof that claims that $1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ... = \frac{1}{2}$ that proceeds as follows:     Let $S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...$. Then $$S = 1 - (1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 ...) = 1 - S$$ Therefore, $2S = 1$, so $S = \frac{1}{2}$. QED   I was under the impression that this sum doesn't converge, and therefore this step of the proof is invalid:     Let $S = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...$   That is, it's not even valid to suppose that the sum is equal to some (implicitly real or complex) number $S$, and therefore the reasoning that follows is meaningless because $S$ doesn't exist and therefore has any properties we want it to have.  Is the reasoning I've given above correct? That is, is it correct for me to claim that the proof fails because $S$ doesn't exist?  (I've heard that there are techniques for evaluating divergent integrals by using complex analysis and Taylor series, so perhaps there's another way to prove that the summation is $\frac{1}{2}$; I just wanted to see whether my reasoning is sufficient to explain why this particular proof is incorrect. If the proof actually is correct, then I stand corrected!)  Thanks! I understand that assuming light is quantized implies that if a lower energy interacts with  metal, it is possible that that quanta will not have enough energy to eject the electron. What prevents two quanta from interacting with the electron at the same time, though, and summing to have enough energy to release the particle. Indeed, what if two separate light rays of the same frequency impact the electron, why can't that free it? Let $p$ be prime and $(\frac{-3}p)=1$. Prove that $p$ is of the form $p=a^2+3b^2$ Let $p$ be prime and $(\frac{-3}p)=1$, where $(\frac{-3}p)$ is Legendre symbol. Prove that $p$ is of the form $p=a^2+3b^2$.   My progress:  $(\frac{-3}p)=1 \Rightarrow$ $(\frac{-3}p)=(\frac{-1}p)(\frac{3}p)=(-1)^{\frac{p-1}2}(-1)^{\lfloor\frac{p+1}6\rfloor}=1 \Rightarrow$ $\frac{p-1}2+\lfloor\frac{p+1}6\rfloor=2k$  I'm stuck here. This is probably not the way to prove that.  Also tried this way:  $(\frac{-3}p)=1$, thus $-3\equiv x^2\pmod{p} \Rightarrow$ $p|x^2+3 \Rightarrow$ $x^2+3=p\cdot k$ stuck here too.  Any help would be appreciated. I need help to advance in the resolution of that limit: $ \lim_{n \to \infty}{\sqrt[n]{\frac{n!}{n^n}}} $ How would I go about proving this limit?  $\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{x^4+x^2+5}=0$  so far I have:  $|f(x) -L|&lt; ϵ$ wherever $x &gt; N$  $|\frac{1}{x^4+x^2+5} - 0| &lt; ϵ $ wherever $x &gt; N$  $|\frac{1}{x^4+x^2+5}| &lt; ϵ  ,\; x &gt; ∞$, assuming, $x &gt; 0$  taking the absolute value $\frac{1}{x^4+x^2+5} &lt; ϵ$  ${x^4+x^2+5}$ > $\frac{1}{ϵ}$  i am not sure whether this is correct, but what would be the next step? How do I find out what fonts are used in a document/picture? Is it possible to identify the font used in a specific document/picture?  Answers to this question should identify:   Possible methods to do this (perhaps one answer per method) and adequately describe how to use it (as opposed to merely stating it); Ways of finding the identified fonts, if possible (free or not); and Any prerequisites associated with the method used, if required (for example, "In order to use method X, your document has to be in format Y").   This question is meant as an FAQ, based on an . Its aim is to facilitate the community with the general procedures involved in font identification. Similar cases are solved on a per-usage basis on 's  tag. I'm still learning, but I'm trying to follow a tutorial to apply texture to a model. I only want to apply the texture to one object in the scene, so I selected it, unwrapped it, and painted over it. Now I selected it in the Edit Mode (I can't select it in the Object mode because all is locked together) and went into Node Editor, but the nodes are greyed out.  Why? How to prove $4(n!)>2^{n+2}$ for $ n\geq 4$ with induction I've done the base step, but how do I prove it is true for $n+1$ without using a fallacy? $$4(n!)&gt;2^{n+2}\quad \text{for } n\geq 4$$ Please help. Post Problem Analysis - Rod in a cylindrical time varying magnetic field? A metal rod of length $l$ is placed (as shown in figure) in a cylindrical time varying magnetic field. Find the potential difference across it.   My answer:  As electric fields as forming circles around the centre with magnitude $$\frac12r\frac{dB}{dt}$$ whose magnitude is same along any chord at a fix distance from centre: $$\Delta V=E.l=\frac12r\frac32at^{\frac12}.l$$ $$\Delta V=\frac34arlt^{\frac12}$$  My question: Is $\Delta V =V_M-V_N$ or $\Delta V=V_N-V_M$ $\bf OR$ equivalently which side is at high potential?  Possible    $(i)$ As Field lines are circular from $M$ to $N$, $M$ must be high potential. $(ii)$ As this field line apply a force on electrons- in the rod- towards left, then $M$ must have excess $e^-$ and $N$ must have deficiency; so $N$ would be high potential as $M$ is $(+)$ and $N$ is $(-)$. Saving Arduino sensor data to a text file How can I save data retrieved from a sensor to a text file on the computer? How can I kill the Mirelurk Queen? Use mathematical induction to prove that 6(n+2) + 7(2n+1) is divisible by 43 for n >= 1.  So start with n = 1:  6(1+2) + 7(2(1)+1) = 63 + 73 = 559 -> 559/43 = 13. So n=1 is divisible  Let P(k): 6(k+2)+7(2k+1) , where k>=1  Show that P(k+1): 6((k+1)+2) + 7(2(k+1)+1) is true  = 6(k+1+2) + 7(2k+2+1)  = 6(k+3) + 7(2k+3)  I'm unsure where to go from here, I've tried several directions after this but have got nowhere. I don't know how to get the 43 or 559 out the front.  Any help would be great How to repair a broken .EXE file association After (hopefully) scrubbing viruses out of a Windows 7 installation (after deciding not to simply run over the laptop repeatedly with my car), I've got everything almost back to normal. The only lingering issue I have is that for my non-admin users, the ".exe" file extension doesn't work. That is, clicking on the various desktop application links results in a "How do you want to open this?" dialog.  I've been through the alleged registry fixing from "winhelponline" and that had absolutely no effect.  I've tried running "assoc" for the affected users, but it reports the .exe association to be "exefile" even though it persistently does not work.  Right-clicking on a desktop icon and then choosing "start" does successfully open an application, but that's clearly a terrible situation.  For my admin user, things seem to work fine.  What do I need to do to get things working? I wonder whether there is any automatic way of determining (at least roughly) the Big-O time complexity of a given function?  If I graphed an O(n) function vs. an O(n lg n) function I think I would be able to visually ascertain which is which; I'm thinking there must be some heuristic solution which enables this to be done automatically.  Any ideas?  Edit: I am happy to find a semi-automated solution, just wondering whether there is some way of avoiding doing a fully manual analysis. Properties of $\liminf$ and $\limsup$ of sum of sequences: $\limsup s_n + \liminf t_n \leq \limsup (s_n + t_n) \leq \limsup s_n + \limsup t_n$ Let $\{s_n\}$ and $\{t_n\}$ be sequences.  I've noticed this inequality in a few analysis textbooks that I have come across, so I've started to think this can't be a typo:  $\limsup\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} s_n + \liminf\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} t_n \leq \limsup\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} (s_n + t_n) \leq \limsup\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} s_n + \limsup\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty} t_n$.  I understand the right two-thirds of the equation, and can prove it.  I'm stuck on the far-left third.  I don't understand how that is true.