$X$ and $Y$ are independent Poisson distributed values with means $θ$ and $2θ$. Consider the combined estimator $\gamma = k_1\cdot X + k_2\cdot Y$
Maximum Likelihood Estimate with different parameters
Equivalent of shell 'cd' command to change the working directory? cd is the shell command to change the working directory. How do I change the current working directory in Python? My storage was not updated I just changed my storage plan for 50 GB for $0.99 per month. When i went on settings>General>Storage and icloud usage, where it said storage above it i didnt have more storage. But the second box, where it said icloud abov it had upgraded to 50 GB. But i dont have any more storage for me to be able to get more apps etc. File has different name in terminal and Finder I've just downloaded the driver for my preferred trackball from Logitech. In the Finder, the Installer's filename is Logitech Control Center Installer.app. In the Terminal, ls shows LCC Installer.app. How did this happen? Meta Theory when studying Set Theory What exactly serves as the meta theory in the study of set theory (for example in Kunen's text). It seems to involve a certain amount of number theory and a certain concept of what it means to be finite.   Also: We usually use $\bigcup_{\alpha\in{ON}}R_{\alpha}$ as our set theortic universe $V$ (in the sense we believe that all sets we are interested in live there) where $R_{0}=\emptyset$, $R_{\alpha+1}= \mathcal{P}(R_{\alpha})$ and $R_{\alpha}=\bigcup_{\beta&lt;\alpha}R_{\beta}$ when $\alpha$ is a limit ordinal. The study of independence results then seem to be based on relatavizing notions with this $V$ as our set theoretic universe. It seems that it is implicitly assumed that the $\omega$ in $V$ has no non-standard elemements (in the sense that there is no $n&gt;a$ in $\omega$ where $a$ is obtained be repeatedly applying the successor operation to $0$.) Is this true and can it be formalized or is it something that is taken for granted?   e.g. If the above were true then $ZFC\vdash{\neg{Con(\ulcorner{ZFC}\urcorner)}}$ would imply that $ZFC$ is inconsistent since we may look at the $ZFC$ axioms $\phi_{1},...,\phi_{n}\vdash\neg{Con\ulcorner{ZFC}\urcorner}$, then look at a ctm these axioms (which exists by reflection and downward Lowenheim Skolem) and recover the proof of the contradiction. I left myself signed in to my work Gmail account on my personal computer. I am not using Chrome. I had an internet session that was not suitable for work. At all. This included Google searches and YouTube searches.  Will my employer be able to identify what I have been searching? I want to prove that $xe^{-x}$ is bounded by some constant for all the $x \in [0, \infty)$. So I take derivative of this guy, and found that on $x \in [0, \infty)$, its derivative is positive from $[0, 1)$, $0$ at $x=1$, and negative from (1, in infinity). So  $xe^{-x}$ achieves its maximum in $[0, \infty)$ at $x=1$, which is $1/e$. However, to prove that it's bounded by $1/e$, I need to prove that as $x$ goes to infinity, $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$. Because otherwise, if it went to some value below $(-1/e)$, $xe^{-x}$ would not be bounded by $1/e$. How can I prove that $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$? I mean, as $x$ goes to infinity, $e^{-x}$ converges to zero, but at the same time, x diverges to infinity. How can I formally prove that the product term converges to $0$? Do I need to use the epsilon definition of convergence to prove it?  Could you just show me the formal proof of $xe^{-x}$ converges to $0$? Or is there's any other way to approach this question? My professor suggested that I should use the power series for $e^{-x}$...?   Your help is greatly appreciated! Thank you so much!  I hope you enjoy your Saturday! There are two checkboxes for Run As Administrator in the Properties dialog for a shortcut in Windows 7. One is under the Shortcut tab in the Advanced Properties dialog, and the other is under the Compatibility tab.  I've seen this under Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. It might be in Vista and other versions, but I'm not sure.  What is the difference between these two settings? Restore the state of std::cout after manipulating it CSS customized scroll bar in div Are code questions without an attempt now on topic Office suite on Ubuntu Phone? Computing second partial derivative with polar coordinates Consider the polar coordinates with $x=r\cos\theta$ and $y=r\sin\theta$.  I can show using the chain rule that $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} = \frac{x}{r} \frac{\partial}{\partial r} -\frac{y}{r^2} \frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}$$   What is the method to compute $\dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}$? I don't know how to do it. Enable replace image feature in LibreOffice What is the best way to vertically center the content of a div when the height of the content is variable.  In my particular case, the height of the container div is fixed, but it would be great if there were a solution that would work in cases where the container has a variable height as well. Also, I would love a solution with no, or very little use of CSS hacks and/or non-semantic markup. What is the recommended wording for a generic error message Understanding how references and labels work I'm trying to understand why I cannot effectively reference figures or equations that I have defined with labels.  For example:  \begin{figure}   \label{fig:area_Treasuries}   \caption{Treasuries as a portion of total financial flows.}   \centering   \includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{graphs/Area_Treasuries.png} \end{figure}  \paragraph{} Figure~\ref{fig:area_Treasuries} presents Treasuries (both flowing into and out of the United States) as a share of total financial flows.  From 1985 to 2010, Treasuries account for, on average, 53.2\% of total financial flows.   With the above code, I get this warning:      LaTeX Warning: Reference `fig:area_Treasuries' on page 37 undefined on   input line 477.   The result is "Figure ?? presents Treasuries..."  Why is this happening?  Related, I don't understand why I can't reference, say, an equation before (I mean physically above in the text) the actual equation.  Isn't this what compiling multiple times and cross references is supposed to take care of? pgfplots: Clipping Everything Outside a Specific Area I want to add information to each column of a histogram. every node near coord is probably the best approach. It works well with bar plots but not with the histogram:  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage{pgfplots} \pgfplotsset{compat=newest} \usetikzlibrary{pgfplots.statistics}  \begin{document}  \begin{tikzpicture} \begin{axis}[ ybar interval, xticklabel=\pgfmathprintnumber\tick--\pgfmathprintnumber\nexttick, % Code to generate labels nodes near coords={ \pgfmathprintnumber{\pgfkeysvalueof{/data point/y}} }, every node near coord/.style={ anchor=south,xshift=9mm, }, % ] \addplot+[hist={bins=3}] table[row sep=\\,y index=0] { data\\ 1\\ 2\\ 1\\ 5\\ 4\\ 10\\ 7\\ 10\\ 9\\ 8\\ 9\\ 9\\ }; \end{axis} \end{tikzpicture}  \end{document}   I used every node near coord/.style to shift the labels.  The problem is that I have four labels for three columns/bars:    I addition I would like to center the labels. A workaround will be a manual adjustment (every node near coord/.style) just like in the shown example.  Update  Maybe clipping is a possibility. Is there a way to clip the labels (in this case the 7 in the right) away?  Like this: Reading a file used by another process I am preparing a book for publication which contains the following passage:     Stromberg in Religious Liberalism in Eighteenth-Century England   (1954) noted that 'the critical moment in the emergence of a positive   spirit of reform...consisted in the awareness of evil as being social   and remediable. It begins about 1750.'   My proof reader (my wife) has picked this out suggesting it should be the past tense. However if I say It began about 1750 it seems to convey too much certainty about the exact date. I just want to convey an impression of it being something which emerges in the mid-eighteenth century. I believe use of the present tense is the way to go.   But what is this artifice called, this use of the present to convey mild uncertainty? I have several spreadsheets with information I need to consolidate, each with different (and sometimes overlapping) portions of the final data set I'm hoping to create. Typically, combining spreadsheets with similar data is easy to do by dumping all the data into one sheet and using Remove Duplicates. However, I want to make sure that the line items which are left represent the latest version of the duplicates.  I will be importing the following data from each spreadsheet:   A unique identifier field, (UID) which identifies the subject of the line item and will be used to spot duplicates between the input sheets. A status field, (STATUS) which will have information about the item called out in the unique identifier field. A date field, (DATE) which will contain the date the imported data was originally written.   What I need is for my output to contain only one line item for each UID, and have data from the STATUS field which matches the most recent DATE for that UID from the input sheets.  What is the easiest way to do this in Excel?