How to extract users input and check if it matches the pre-made username and password
How do I compare strings in Java?
How to prove that $L=${$a^p$: p is prime} isn't regular? I tried using pumping lemma or finding infinite equivalence classes, but I didn't succeed.  It's clear to me that there is no automata that accepts this language, but I just can't formally prove that this language isn't regular.  How can you prove it? Java Command line arguments Find a plane that passes through a point and is perpendicular to 2 planes Find an equation of a plane that passes through $p(1,5,1)$ and is perpendicular to planes $2x+y-2z = 2$ and $x+3z=4$.  I basically need the 2 other points to make the vector and perform the cross product.  Since $ax+by+cz+d=0$ is the form of a plane. Can I obtain the points as $(a,b,c)$ of the 2 planes given? Also, how can I set them up to obtain the points? Recently my audio input, from USB headset and USB guitar cable have stopped working. Going into Windows 'Sounds' and enabling 'Listen to this device' outputs the audio as expected; the problem is not with the devices. However, as soon as I try to use them with any other program, discord, for example, no audio input is detected by discord.  I have tried everything I can think of and some suggestions from Googling around;   Updating everything - windows, drivers, all related software Rolling windows back to the last build Trying different USB ports Reinstalling drivers and software Running Windows troubleshooters Playing with device properties settings   But nothing seems to work, any suggestions? I searched wide and far and couldn't come up with a title for a movie I watched somewhere around the mid-90ies up to early 00's as a rerun in late-night television (in Germany, specifically on Vox; but I'm sure it was an American movie to begin with).  Basically, what I remember from the story revolves around a crew in a space station or maybe space ship of some sort. Some crew members murder other crew members and there is some kind of door they are not supposed/unable to go through. Late in the movie they do go through the door and I'm pretty sure one of the first views is a skeleton of a dead security guard. It turns out the whole thing was some kind of simulation gone wrong and they find themselves to be in a (nuclear?) wasteland. And that's pretty much the revelation/wrap-up of the movie, as I recall it.  I would be delighted if somebody had any idea what movie this could be :) Thanks!  EDIT: The whole movie was in color and I think it was feature-length, not just 45 mins. To me, using Present Perfect form means the event can occur again. So, saying      someone has died   may not be grammatically correct.  Also, I noticed (it might be just coincidence):     passed away   is used more often than     has passed away   Is using Present Perfect correct here? Is Gauss's law wrong, or is it possible that $\int_s{\vec E} \cdot d\vec{s}=0$ does not imply $\vec E = 0$? This is a question from David J Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics.      A specified charge density $\sigma(\theta)=k\cos(\theta) $ is glued over the surface of a spherical shell of radius $R$. Find the resulting potential inside and outside the sphere.   The question was solved using legendre polynomials and the final answer for potential inside the sphere was : $V(r,\theta) = \frac{kr}{3\epsilon_0}cos\theta$  This final answer is confusing because The Electric field inside the sphere is coming out to be dependent on $r$ and $\theta$ whereas electric field inside a shell, no matter what the charge distribution is outside, is $zero$ from gauss's law.      my doubts:         why is the electric field inside non zero?    Can gauss's law explain this, or does it fail here?      Since solving using ordinary surface integral gave me the same result and since the. divergence inside the shell is $zero$, I concluded that legendre polynomials and gauss's law in differential form are correct. So the problem should be with the integral form of gauss's law : $\int_s{\vec E}.d\vec{s} = \frac{q}{\epsilon_0}$  The answer I got for this doubt is that  "since the charges are glued to the surface, and not evenly distributed, electric field inside need not be zero. "     This is not convincing because proof of gauss's law does not expect the charges to be free to move. presence of an exrernal force that would hold the charges in place does not change the theorem. That is    Say only a single charge $q_i$ is present outside      then $\int_s{\vec E_i}.d\vec{s} = \frac{q_{inside}}{\epsilon_0}=0$      Now if there are more charges, following any distribution, net electric field $\vec E = \vec E_1 + \vec E_2+\vec E_3+...$       So the net flux,       $\int_s{\vec E}.d\vec{s} = \int_s{\vec E_1}.d\vec{s}+\int_s{\vec E_2}.d\vec{s}+\int_s{\vec E_3}.d\vec{s}+. . .=0$   Or is it possible that $\int_s{\vec E}.d\vec{s}=0$ does not imply $\vec E = 0$? What does f-stop mean? For aer.bst, citations with 3 or more authors are listed using et al. I need to modify the bibliography so that citations with 4 or more authors are listed using et al., but that citations with 3 authors have all the names written out. For example, I want "See Adams, Brown, and Clark (2003)" as opposed to "See Adams et al. (2003)." I'm using natbib with LaTex: \usepackage{natbib,har2nat}  In order to do that, I need to modify the function format.lab.names.abbr.  Might someone know how to do this?  FUNCTION {format.lab.names.abbr} { 'name.list :=   name.list num.names$ 'numnames :=   numnames #1 &gt;     { numnames #2 &gt;         { name.list #1 "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$ " et al." * }         { name.list #2 "{ff }{vv }{ll}{ jj}" format.name$ "others" =             { name.list #1 "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$ " et al." * }             { name.list #1 "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$ " and " *               name.list #2 "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$ *             }           if$         }       if$       field.used editor.field = {", eds" *} {} if$     }     {         name.list #1 "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$         field.used editor.field = {", ed" *} {} if$     }   if$ }   FUNCTION {format.lab.names.full} { 'name.list :=   #1 'nameptr :=   name.list num.names$ 'numnames :=   numnames 'namesleft :=     { namesleft #0 &gt; }     { name.list nameptr "{vv~}{ll}" format.name$ 'temp :=       nameptr #1 &gt;         { namesleft #1 &gt;             { ", " * temp * }             { temp "others" =                 { " et~al." * }                 { " and " * temp * }               if$             }           if$         }         'temp       if$       nameptr #1 + 'nameptr :=       namesleft #1 - 'namesleft :=     }   while$   numnames #1 &gt; field.used editor.field = and {", eds" *} {} if$   numnames #1 = field.used editor.field = and {", ed" *} {} if$ } I have 4 time series. One of them is stationary and rest of them are not. I need to find relation between them. I will use AIC to decide lag length.   Should I use VAR or VECM to find relation between them?  Will VAR or VECM give me relation in terms of equation which can be used for forecasting?  Do I need to perform Johansen's test of cointegration?  What good would it do? I was viewing some old posts on Stack Overflow (two-year-old posts) and found that due to "fast technology trend changing," some of them are no longer valid. Stack Overflow (and the Stack Exchange sites generally) should have some sort of criteria to tag questions as Obsolete, or a vote-based system to mark them as such.  I am not in favour of closing obsolete questions. Prove that $\int f\ d\lambda = \int_{a}^{b} f(x)\ dx,$ for any $f \in \mathcal R[a,b].$ Theorem $:$ Let $f : [a,b] \longrightarrow \Bbb R$ be a Riemann integrable function. Then $f \in L_1[a,b]$ and $$\int f\ d\lambda = \int_{a}^{b} f(x)\ dx.$$  The proof given in my book is as follows $:$     At the fag end of the proof $f$ has been proved to be measurable which uses the completeness of the measure space $\left ([a,b], \mathcal L \cap [a,b], \lambda |_{[a,b]} \right ).$ Then it has been stated that $f \leq \Phi_n,$ $\forall$ $n$ and hence $f \in L_1[a,b]$ since $\Phi_n \in L_1[a,b]$ by the proposition $5.4.3 \ $(i) which states the following $:$  Let $f \in \Bbb L$ and $g \in L_1[a,b].$ If $|f(x)| \leq g(x)$ for a.e. $x(\mu).$ Then $f \in L_1[a,b].$  I don't know how to use this proposition to claim that $f \in L_1[a,b].$ Also I don't understand the way dominated convergence theorem used here. What I know about dominated convergence theorem is as follows $:$  Let $(X, \mathcal S, \mu)$ be a complete measure space. Let $g \in L_1(X)$ and $\{f_n \}_{n \geq 1}$ be a sequence in $\Bbb L$ such that $|f_n(x)| \leq g(x)$ a.e. $x(\mu).$ Let $f_n(x) \to f(x)$ as $n \to \infty$ a.e. $x (\mu).$ Then $f \in L_1(X)$ and $$\int f\ d\mu = \lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \int f_n\ d\mu.$$  From here how to conclude that $$\Psi_n\ \bigg\uparrow\ f \implies \int f\ d\lambda = \lim\limits_{n \to \infty} \int \Psi_n\ d\lambda.$$ Please help me in this regard. Thanks in advance. I've just installed Ubuntu 14.04 and am trying to install php 5.3. But when I run   apt-get install php5    it's installing php 5.5.9-1ubuntu4. I need to use php 5.3 in the system because the application I'm working on is built with php 5.3.   How can I achieve this? Accepting an answer should automatically upvote it as well I've been using the $K$-fold cross-validation a few times now to evaluate performance of some learning algorithms, but I've always been puzzled as to how I should choose the value of $K$.  I've often seen and used a value of $K = 10$, but this seems totally arbitrary to me, and I now just use $10$ by habit instead of thinking it over. To me it seems that you're getting a better granularity as you improve the value of $K$, so ideally you should make your $K$ very large, but there is also a risk to be biased.  I'd like to know what the value of $K$ should depend on, and how I should be thinking about this when I evaluate my algorithm. Does it change something if I use the stratified version of the cross-validation or not? Finding minimal form -- Velleman exercise 1.5.7a Will the silhouette formula change depending on the distance metric? I am using Silhouette width to compute the best value for k in k-means. As I am performing document clustering, I am calculating the values of a and b as follows in Python:  a = distance(data[index], centroids[clusters[index]], metric=metric, p=p) b = min([distance(data[index], c) for i,c in enumerate(centroids) if i != currentindex]) score = float(b - a) / max(a, b) if max(a, b) &gt; 0 else 0.0   The original formula from the  is the following:    I am using a cosine similarity measure to compute the distances and was wondering if this formula needs to be changed or it can be left as is. In the above snippet of code, the function distance computes the cosine similarity metric. Virtualbox Kernel driver not installed Sending signals to USB port using C I want to send a simple 5V signal to the usb port. The USB cabel's insulation will be removed and connected to a relay which is connected to an electric door system. I think I should write this code in C. Can somebody give me a hint? In Minecraft, is there any way to make tools indestructible (without using mods)? I want to make some tools indestructible (for an adventure map). Is it possible to do this using enchantments (or a command of some kind?)