Problem with concmath package
Smooth rendering of bitmap fonts
How to convert decimal to hexadecimal in JavaScript Java method dispatch with null argument How to SEO a Single-Page website Why do hard links exist? In Einstein's General Relativity, do the space-time dimensions curve? In Einstein's General Relativity, do the space-time dimensions curve according to the positions of stars, planets, and masses? How to restore original size and unboot my bootable USB pendrive I recently made my pen-drive bootable with Ubuntu 14.04. But I need to unboot my pen-drive now. I formatted my pen-drive once,But the size of the pen-drive still shows 2.25 MB. Whereas,this is an 8GB pen-drive. How can I get rid of this problem. I'm still using Windows 7. Should an adverb go before or after a verb? For example:     The word rarely turns up outside of those contexts.      The word turns up rarely outside of those contexts.   Which one is correct and why? "High response time" warnings in Google Webmaster Tools In my Google Webmaster Tools account, there are warnings about my site.     Some URLs listed in this sitemap have a high response time. This may indicate a problem with your server or with the content of the page.   What is the solution? Lets say I have something like:   \[ Let x = number of cats \]   (This is a contrived example, but pretend we are actually inside a long align environment block...) "Let" and "number of cats" need to be written like normal text, while x= needs to be math type text.  I've seen this:  \[ \mbox{Let } x = \mbox{ number of cats} \]   and this:  \[ \textrm{Let } x = \textrm{ number of cats} \]   They seem to produce equivalent output, but I'm not sure which is the "correct" one. Also, they are not ideal in that the extra space needs to be placed inside the text mode block, otherwise it is ignored as math mode and butts the text right up against the math.  Ideally there would be some command which allowed embedding text into an equation, which correctly inserted leading and trailing space around the block as required without adding space inside the text block.  How does one do that "correctly"? Optimizer not choosing index union plan Why is the following query slow?  select count(*)   from [dbo].[mt_dispatch_link]     , [dbo].[_mt_dispatch] [_mt_dispatch]  where   (mt_dispatch_link.contract_id_1 = _mt_dispatch.contract_id       and mt_dispatch_link.dispatch_id_1 = _mt_dispatch.dispatch_id)     or   (mt_dispatch_link.contract_id_2 = _mt_dispatch.contract_id       and mt_dispatch_link.dispatch_id_2 = _mt_dispatch.dispatch_id)     It takes over 10 minutes, and then I tend to stop it at that point. My question is more about how to make sense of the query plan.  Looking at the query plan I can see that the bottom clustered index scan is returning about 250000 records, but the cost is 0% and it is being put into a temporary table.  The top index scan is about 25000 records.  But the cost of 95% comes from the nested join. What conclusions should I draw from this?  The above query plan shows two index scans, does that mean it is doing 25000 + 250000 index scans, or does it mean that it is doing 25000 * 250000 index scans?  If I change the query to this (adding FORCESEEK):  select count(*)   from [dbo].[mt_dispatch_link]     , [dbo].[_mt_dispatch] [_mt_dispatch]       WITH (FORCESEEK)  where   (mt_dispatch_link.contract_id_1 = _mt_dispatch.contract_id       and mt_dispatch_link.dispatch_id_1 = _mt_dispatch.dispatch_id)     or   (mt_dispatch_link.contract_id_2 = _mt_dispatch.contract_id       and mt_dispatch_link.dispatch_id_2 = _mt_dispatch.dispatch_id)   I end up with a much better plan and the query runs instantly:    I ran update statistics on both tables. Didn't fix it unfortunately. The table design is not very good, so I think SQL Server doesn't really understand and is thus coming up with a poor query plan. Some more info about the table design at .  Why is the query optimiser not coming up with the optimum plan? One of the biggest issue with cluster analysis is that we may happen to have to derive different conclusion when base on different clustering methods used  (including different linkage methods in hierarchical clustering).  I would like to know your opinion on this - which method will you select, and how. One might say "the best method of clustering is which gives you the right answer"; but I may question in response that cluster analysis is supposed to be an unsupervised technique - so how do I know which method or linkage is the right answer?  In general: is a clustering alone robust enough to rely on? Or we need a second method and get a shared result to be based on both?  My question is not only about possible ways to validate / evaluate clustering performance, but is broader - on what basis do we select/prefer one clustering method/algorithm over another one. Also, is there common warnings that we should look around when we are selecting a method to cluster our data?  I know that it is very general question and very difficult to answer. I only would like to know if you have any comment or any advise or any suggestion for me to learn more about this. How many actuations are "too many actuations"? How  can I delete a node after, for example, 2 weeks it has been created? TikZ doesn't fill when node coordinates are used Can someone please explain me why the following code doesn't result in a fill?  And why, sometimes, I get such "very thin lines" artifact (that's visibile in my picture)?  \begin{tikzpicture} \node (A) at (0,0) {A}; \node (B) at (1,0) {B}; \node (C) at (1,1) {C}; \fill[red] (A) -- (B) -- (C) --cycle; \end{tikzpicture}   Here's what I get: etoolbox and tabularx -- problem with `appto` I'm trying to print worksheets. I have already implemented an automatic numbering for subtasks. I use tabularx for my subtasks (see the MWE below).  Yesterday, I tried to define a new macro called \task that has one optional argument which is the amount of points you can obtain for this particular question. I would like these optional arguments to be gathered with etoolbox's \appto command so that I can print them with my \credits command.  So far, this seems to be ind of struggling as tabularx is working on the tables several times. Every time tabularx calculates the width of X columns the points are appended to \credits which leads to an incorrect list of points.  Is there any way I can solve this problem? I'm currently stucked with this issue.  Plus, I don't know why my \task command does work. Why is the counter subtask not affected by tabularx's several trials?  \documentclass{scrartcl}  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}  \usepackage{etoolbox} \usepackage{booktabs} \usepackage{ltablex} \usepackage{xifthen}  \def\credits{} \newcounter{subtask} \setcounter{subtask}{1} \renewcommand{\thesubtask}{\alph{subtask})} \newcommand{\task}[1][]{%     \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}{%         \thesubtask%         \stepcounter{subtask}%     }{%         \thesubtask%         \gappto\credits{(#1)}%         \stepcounter{subtask}%     }% }  \begin{document} \begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}[l]{l@{\hspace*{1ex}}X}     \task[1]    &amp;   TEXT1\\     \task       &amp;   TEXT2\\     \task[3]    &amp;   TEXT3 \end{tabularx} \credits \end{document}       The solution given by David Carlisle below causes a table that is too wide. How can this be undone?  \documentclass{scrartcl}  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}  \usepackage[a6paper, showframe=true]{geometry}  \usepackage{etoolbox} \usepackage{booktabs} \usepackage{ltablex} \usepackage{xifthen}  \def\credits{} \newcounter{subtask} \setcounter{subtask}{1} \renewcommand{\thesubtask}{\alph{subtask})} \makeatletter \newcommand{\task}[1][]{%     \ifx\hfuzz\@tempdima% %   % tabularx trial do nothing     \else%         \ifthenelse{\isempty{#1}}{%             \thesubtask%             \stepcounter{subtask}%         }{%             \thesubtask%                 \gappto\credits{(#1 BE)\\}%             \stepcounter{subtask}%         }%     \fi } \makeatother   \begin{document}  \begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}[l]{l@{\hspace*{1ex}}X}     \task[1]    &amp;   Some longer text that exceedes the line width.\\     \task[4]    &amp;   TEXT2\\     \task[3]    &amp;   TEXT3 \end{tabularx} \credits  \end{document} Motivation behind standard deviation? Let's take the numbers 0-10.  Their mean is 5, and the individual deviations from 5 are -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 And so the average (magnitude of) deviation from the mean is $30/11 \approx 2.72$.  However, this is not the standard deviation.  The standard deviation is $\sqrt{10} \approx 3.16$.  The first mean-deviation is a simpler and by far more intuitive definition of the "standard-deviation", so I'm sure it's the first definition statisticians worked with.  However, for some reason they decided to adopt the second definition instead.  What is the reasoning behind that decision? Understanding the proof for showing that there are infinitely many $n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$ such that $n!+1$ is divisible by at least two distinct primes There is another post pertaining to this question; however, the other post does not address some specifics that concern me in the proof. Proof: Let $n=p-1, p \geq 7$. Then $p|(p-1)!+1$. We will show that $(p-1)!+1=p^n$ has no solutions. Suppose not. Suppose $(p-1)! + 1 = p^n$ has a solution for $p\geq 7$. Then $(p-1)! =p^n-1  = (p-1)(p^{n-1}+\cdots+p+1)$. So $(p-2)!\equiv n (\mod p-1)$. Now suppose that $(p-1)|n$. Then $p-1\leq n$. So $(p-1)!+1&lt;p^{p-1}\leq p^n$. Hence, there are no solutions. It remains to show that $(p-1)|(p-2)!$. But $p-1=2m$ means $2m|(p-2)!$. QED  Questions:  My understanding is that at the start of the proof, Wilson's theorem is used to show that at least one prime divides $n!+1$.  Why do we want to show that $(p-1)!+1=p^n$ has no solutions? The way I see it is that $p^n$ is composite, and we are basically saying that $p^n\nmid (p-1)!+1$, so no composite number divides $n! +1$. But how and where in the proof do we actually show that another prime $q \neq p$ divides $n!+1$?    Thanks in advance. From what I understand, midi-chlorian count is a strong indicator of ability in the Force (though there are other factors as well). So it seems like when Anakin loses his arm or Luke loses his hand, their midi-chlorian counts (and thus their Force ability) should slightly diminish.  Is this the case? How big an RSA key is considered secure today? I think 1024 bit RSA keys were considered secure ~5 years ago, but I assume that's not true anymore. Can 2048 or 4096 keys still be relied upon, or have we gained too much computing power in the meanwhile?  Edit: Lets assume an appropriate padding strategy. Also, I'm asking both about security of signatures and security of data encryption. The value of a, b and c for this integral Find out the value of $a, b$ and $c$, for which $$ \lim _{x\to 0}\:\:\frac{1}{x^5}\left(\int _0^x\:\left(a+b \cos\left(t\right)+c \cos\left(2t\right)\right)dt\right)=\frac{1}{5} $$  My first thought was to separate the integral into multiple ones because i thought that it is pretty clear that each integral is a common one and a,b,c are constants and can be taken out . After I solved the integral, that's where I had the problem. I couldn't do the limit of the result that I've got in order to find out the value of $a,b$ and $c$ .