Server is currently in DDOS attack, what can I do?
I am under DDoS. What can I do?
Does this email mean that I have been granted the visa? Does magnetic monopole violate $U(1)$ gauge symmetry? Does a magnetic monopole violate $U(1)$ gauge symmetry? In what sense and why? Insofar as I know, there are at least two types of magnetic monopoles. One is the Dirac monopole while the other is the monopole in Grand Unified Theories (GUT), e.g., 't Hooft-Polyakov monopole.  In the latter case, some non-Abelian gauge theory breaks down to a (compact) $U(1)$ gauge theory wherein monopoles can be observed from a large distance. The monopole field is not from the $U(1)$ degrees of freedom and nothing is singular. On the contrary, Dirac monopole is singular (topological defect?) and we must introduce Dirac string or patches of vector potential $\vec{A}(x)$. Are these no more than artifacts arising when one tries to describe the monopole field within the $U(1)$ gauge theory by assuming $\vec{B}=\nabla\times\vec{A}$? It seems true since two Maxwell's equations that magnetic monopole might affect can be cast in the differential form $\mathrm{d}F=0$ and $F=\mathrm{d}A$ in Minkowski spacetime, from which $U(1)$ gauge invariance manifests for $\mathrm{d}(A+\mathrm{d}\chi)=\mathrm{d}A$.  However, I later noticed two seminal papers on Dirac monopole  &amp; , in which the authors claimed the following   electromagnetism without monopole $\rightarrow$ connection on a trivial $U(1)$ bundle electromagnetism with monopole $\rightarrow$ connection on a nontrivial $U(1)$ bundle And the wave function of an electron around a Dirac monopole should be regarded as a section which is free from discontinuities.   I've no idea about fibre bundle. Anyway I guess $U(1)$ theory does not necessarily expel Dirac monopoles. It has something to do with the topology of some manifold in the theory? Which manifold? Can anyone shed light on this intriguing issue? Thanks in advance. Trying to run a Ubuntu server for the first time... But everything is in a terminal. Is there a way to switch to a GUI? I ran into the "mysterious"  \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pdfstartlink   error.  According to , "this happens when hyperref is used under pdftex and a citation splits across a page boundary".  The given solution is to manual fix the citation to not split across the page boundary.  However, this workaround isn't feasible for me, as the documents are automatically generated on a server with no user interaction.  Is there any solution to the problem known, perhaps an experimental hyperref action or a patch to pdftex?  (Probably, one could use luatex to solve the problem, but for other reasons, luatex is not an option in this project.)  MWE:  \documentclass[%draft               ]{article} \usepackage{hyperref} \setlength{\textwidth}{3cm} \setlength{\textheight}{3cm}  \begin{document} Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna \href{http://www.tug.org/errors}{aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua.} \end{document} Which fuels burn the longest in Minecraft? A clock near the surface of the earth will run slower than one on the top of the mountain.  If the equivalence principal tells us that being at rest in a gravitational field is equivalent to being in an accelerated frame of reference in free space, shouldn't the clock near the earth run increasingly slower than the other clock over time?  If those two clocks are considered to be in two different frames of acceleration, the one near the earth will have a greater acceleration than the one on the mountain, and thus over time, their relative velocity will increase over time which will increase the time dilation.  Or is this not a proper use of the equivalence principle? How could the Fremen do what they did to the empire in Dune Messiah? How could, and why would, the Fremen's jihad kill 61-Billion people and conquer the known universe?  Their leader Paul was already emperor.  What was left to conquer?  And how could they force this onto Paul when they had no relationship with the Spacing Guild except thru Paul?  If Paul didn't arrange for transportation then how would they get off Arrakis?  And how does a small population of hardened, rugged, but not technologically advanced people do that much conquering in that time?  Also, is there any explanation about how Ix, Tleilex planet and Bene Gesserit planets hold off the wave of jihad? Google search results showing up a URL on its search which doesn't exist on the website Merging bib files from within LaTeX How do I edit my profile? This is probably a noob question, but I forgot how to edit my profile.   Can anyone help me? There is no visible button for me. The generic off-topic flag reason has different wording in the Android app Replacing walls in basement due to flooding.  Contractor installed sump and drain pipe around the inside of the cinder block wall.  I want to put in new wall, concerned that TapCon or other hammer/gun attachments will compromise the cement cover over that pipe.  Can I just use liquid nails? How many connected graphs over V vertices and E edges? Is there a way to calculate the number of simple connected graphs possible over given edges and vertices?   Eg: 3 vertices and 2 edges will have 3 connected graphs But 3 vertices and 3 edges will have 1 connected graph  Then 4 edges and 3 will have 4 connected graphs  Till such values...it is easy to see its  V choose E  But what about when the number of vertices are less than number of edges...how to calculate then?  I am not able to visualize that  Can it be a variation of the Stars and Bars problem  Like...number of ways 7 edges(balls) can be connected to (kept in) 5 vertices(bags) such that no vertex(bag) is isolated (is empty)  Here maybe we might have to consider the number of edges twice as each edge needs two vertices... Find $cot\space x_n$ if $sin(x_{n+1}-x_n)+2^{-(n+1)}sin\space x_nsin \space x_{n+1}=0$ for $n\ge1$ Also Given     Suppose $x_1=tan^{-1}2&gt;x_2&gt;x_3&gt;......$ are positive real numbers   I cannot understand as to how I should approach but I have a hunch which is a bit hand-wavy way to prove it but tried to show that  $lim_{n \to \infty}x_n =\dfrac{\pi}{4}$ (For the proof see my edits in @hypernova's answer)  But can anybody prove it and then use it to find $cot \space x_n$ please? When is a function satisfying the Cauchy-Riemann equations holomorphic? It is, of course, one of the first results in basic complex analysis that a holomorphic function satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations when considered as a differentiable two-variable real function. I have always seen the converse as: if $f$ is continuously differentiable as a function from $U \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$ and satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations, then it is holomorphic (see e.g. Stein and Shakarchi, or ). Why is the $C^1$ condition necessary? I don't see where this comes in to the proof below.   Assume that $u(x,y)$ and $v(x,y)$ are continuously differentiable and satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations. Let $h=h_1 + h_2i$. Then \begin{equation*} u(x+h_1, y+h_2) - u(x,y) = \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} h_1 + \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}h_2 + o(|h|) \end{equation*} and  \begin{equation*} v(x+h_1, y+h_2) - v(x,y) = \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} h_1 + \frac{\partial v}{\partial y} h_2 + o(|h|). \end{equation*} Multiplying the second equation by $i$ and adding the two together gives  \begin{align*} (u+iv)(z+h)-(u+iv)(z) &amp;= \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} h_1 + i \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} h_1 + \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} h_2 + i \frac{\partial v}{\partial y} h_2 + o(|h|)\\\  &amp;= \left( \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} + i \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} \right) (h_1+i h_2) + o(|h|). \end{align*}  Now dividing by $h$ gives us the desired result.   Does there exist a differentiable but not $C^1$ function $f: U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ which satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations and does NOT correspond to a complex-differentiable function? Showing that $f_0 (x_1, \ldots, x_m) \mathrm tr A =\displaystyle{ \sum_{i=1}^n} f_0(x_1, \ldots, Ax_i,\ldots, x_m)$ Question:  Consider $f: (-\epsilon, \epsilon) \to \mathbb R^{m^2}$ a differentiable path of matrices $m \times m$ such that $f(0) = I_m$ and the function $g: I \to \mathbb R$ is defined by $$g(t) = \det f(t)$$  Show that $g'(0) = \mathrm{tr} \,a $ (trace of the matrix $a$), where $a = f'(0)$.   Attempt:  First we use that $\det f(t) = \det (f_1(t), \ldots, f_m(t)) $, where $f_i$ is the $i$-th row of the matrix $f(t)$ $m \times m$. Considering the operator $': \mathbb R^m \to \mathbb R^m$, $f(t) \mapsto f'(t)$  With this in mind $$\begin{align}g'(t) = \det'f(t) &amp;= \sum_{i=1}^{m} \det (f_1(t),\ldots,f'_i(t),\ldots, f_m(t)) \\&amp;\underbrace{=}_{(*)}\det(f_1(t), \ldots, f_m(t))\, \mathrm tr f'(t) \end{align}$$  For $t = 0$ we have   $$\begin{align}g'(0) &amp;=\det(e_1, \ldots, e_m) \,\mathrm tr f'(0) \\&amp;= 1 \dot\, \mathrm tr \,a \\&amp; = \mathrm tr \, a\end{align}$$  I'm trying to come up with a proof using the fact that $\det$ is a $m$-linear form.   In order to prove $(*)$ I need the following equality, which according to this  holds.   If $A: V \to V$ is a linear operator and $f_0$ is a alternated $m$-linear form, such that $f_0 (e_1, \ldots, e_m) = 1$ then   $$f_0 (x_1, \ldots, x_m) \mathrm tr A = \sum_{i=1}^m f_0(x_1, \ldots, Ax_i,\ldots, x_m) $$  Could someone give a proof to this? Default constructor with empty brackets How is $\dfrac1{(1-x)^5}=\sum_{n\geq0}{n+4\choose4}x^n$ Can someone please explain to me how is $$\dfrac1{(1-x)^5}=\sum_{n\geq0}{n+4\choose4}x^n$$  Thanks! Limit point versus limit and implications for convergence I understand that similar questions to this have been asked  and  but I believe my question is different because with regards to (1) I am not asking about the set $X$ that contains the points of my sequence and with regard to (2) because I have the distinct definitions of limit and limit point in mind. That said:  My Question: My textbook, Fundamental Ideas of Analysis by Michael Reed, defines a limit point as:     Definition: Let $(a_n)$ be a sequence of real numbers. A number $d$ is called a limit point if, given $\epsilon &gt; 0$ and an integer $N$, there exists $\color{red}{\mathrm{ an }} \ n \ge N$ so that $|a_n - d| \le \epsilon$.    The definition of a limit is as follows:     Definition: We say that a sequence $(a_n)$ converges to a limit $a$ if, for every $\epsilon \ge 0$, there is an integer $N(\epsilon)$ so that $|a_n - a| \le \epsilon \color{red}{\text{  for all  }} n \ge N$.    From these definitions, and given this question:     If a sequence converges it has exactly one limit point. Is the converse true? If not, provide a counterexample   Can I conclude that the converse is indeed true simply by appealing to the definitions, or do I need a tighter proof. And if I do, I'm a little stuck on how to refine this proof. Daily forecasting We have three years of data for online visits at a daily level. We want to forecast the daily visits for the next 90 days. What would be the best method to capture weekday seasonality , holiday seasons, and also the drift.  Can this be successfully done in R? We are currently using R. We have considered ARIMA but it does not capture seasonality.  While converting the data to a time series in R,  what should be the "frequency"?  Should we use ARIMA with regressors?