Trying to build a Ping functionality, that wil return a dialog to the user displaying the host is up or not when a button it's clicked
What is a NullPointerException, and how do I fix it?
I have a loop that is doing some error checking in my PHP code. Originally it looked something like this...  foreach($results as $result) {     if (!$condition) {         $halt = true;         ErrorHandler::addErrorToStack('Unexpected result.');     }      doSomething();  }  if (!$halt) {     // do what I want cos I know there was no error }   This works all well and good, but it is still looping through despite after one error it needn't. Is there a way to escape the loop? I'm new to field extensions and I can neither see why or how to prove this statement.  If I'm not mistaken, to construct a splitting field, you construct rupture fields one after the other, using that the $8$ element field is the splitting field of $X^8-X$ over $\mathbb F_2$, since $2$ is the only prime divisor of 8.  Over $\mathbb F_2$ $X^8-X$ has two roots : $0$ and $1$. Therefore $X^8-X=X(X-1)(1+X+...+X^6)$. The last factor, call it $P$, has no roots. So let $\alpha$ be a root in some extension $\mathbb F_2(\alpha)$ of $\mathbb F_2$.  We now have $P=(X-\alpha)(X^5+\alpha X^4+...+\alpha^4X+\alpha^5)$.  I suspect $\alpha$ might not be the way to go and if so, my second plan would be to reduce $P$. I don't know how to do this but assuming it to be done, hence having $P=P_1...P_n$, I could start using $P_1$'s rupture field, and then my best guess is that if $\mathbb F_2[X]/(P_1)$ is not sufficient, I re-reduce $P$ over this new field and consider the rupture field of one of the factors, and so on.  Now assuming I wasn't given the statement itself, is it elementary to construct the $8$ element field using $\mathbb F_2$ ? What is potential energy truly? Derivative of determinant of a matrix I would like to know how to calculate:  $$\frac{d}{dt}\det \big(A_1(t), A_2(t), \ldots, A_n (t) \big).$$ How can I prove the convergence of the sequence $b_n=\sqrt[n]{x^n+y^n}$ where $x, y &gt; 0$?  Can I divide it in two cases?  Case 1: $x &gt; y$.  $$ b_n=\sqrt[n]{x^n+y^n} &lt; \sqrt[n]{x^n+x^n} = \sqrt[n]{2 \cdot x^n}=x \cdot \sqrt[n]{2} $$  Case 2: $x &lt; y$.  $$ b_n=\sqrt[n]{x^n+y^n} &lt; \sqrt[n]{y^n+y^n} = \sqrt[n]{2 \cdot y^n}=y \cdot \sqrt[n]{2}$$  Result: Does the sequence converges to $\max(x,y)$? I have Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. I need the correct output because I edited it because it wasn't working but it has only made it worse. Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I" Assume you are given two objects whose exact locations are unknown, but are distributed according to normal distributions with known parameters (e.g. $a \sim N(m, s)$ and $b \sim N(v, t))$. We can assume these are both bivariate normals, such that the positions are described by a distribution over $(x,y)$ coordinates (i.e. $m$ and $v$ are vectors containing the expected $(x,y)$ coordinates for $a$ and $b$ respectively). We will also assume the objects are independent.  Does anyone know if the distribution of the squared Euclidean distance between these two objects is a known parametric distribution? Or how to derive the PDF / CDF for this function analytically? Reinstalling Ubuntu with a dual boot I was experiencing problems with Ubuntu Desktop like missing and broken system packages, missing Unity package and other problems. So I decided that the best solution (without touching Windows files) is just to reinstall Ubuntu.  I looked everywhere and found the way but got confused as some say that I supposed to choose "Erase Ubuntu and reinstall", others say that I supposed to choose "Something else" and just select it manually while installation. I thought the first option would be better and just safer as I don’t want any of Windows files to be touched but it says that it has a bug that erases all other partitions...   Current Ubuntu version: 17.04 desktop 32bit will be replaced with 16.04.0 desktop 32bit (as 32bit 17.04 version is no longer available)   What’s the safer option to choose? And if the second one is, how to make sure it’s Ubuntu partition? Prove that   $\dfrac {\left( 5^{125}-1\right)}{\left( 5^{25}-1\right)}$ is composite number using number theory. Do not use calculator or Wolfram alpha or anything like that. Macbook Air - how to install a dual bootable Ubuntu 14.04 LTS On my Macbook Air 10.9.2 without crashing the current setup, how can i install as dual boot: Ubuntu 14.04 LTS ? (can anyone please advise some step by step please) Banner ads should not be shown on the right-hand ad slot Explanation of method for showing that $\frac{0}{0}$ is undefined (This was asked due to the comments and downvotes on this  answer. I am not that good at maths, so was wondering if I had made any basic mistakes)  Ignoring limits, I would like to know if this is a valid explanation for why $\frac00$ is undefined:     $x = \frac00$    $x \cdot 0 = 0$        Hence There are an infinite number of values for $x$ as anything multiplied by $0$ is $0$.   However, it seems to have got comments, with two general themes.  Once is that you lose the values of $x$ by multiplying by $0$.  The other is that the last line is:      $x \cdot 0 = \frac00 \cdot 0$   as it involves a division by $0$.  Is there any merit to either argument? More to the point, are there any major flaws in my explanation and is there a better way of showing why $\frac00$ is undefined? Let $P$ denote the quotient space obtained by the action of $\mathbb{Z}\backslash2\mathbb{Z}$ by the antipodal map $z\mapsto\frac{1}{z}$ on the riemann sphere $\hat{\mathbb{C}}$ (identified here with $\mathbb{C}\cup\left\{\infty\right\}$). I identify $P$ with the set:  $\left\{ z\in\mathbb{C}:\left|z\right|&lt;1\right\} \cup\left\{ e^{it}:0\leq t\leq\pi\right\} $   that is to say, I use elements of the above set as the representatives for the equivalence classes in $P$. I am looking for formula for a function $f:P\times P\rightarrow[0,\infty)$ such that $f$ is a metric on $P$. Specifically, I would like a formula for $f$ that I can evaluate by plugging in representative elements in the above set (or something like that, more or less).  Thanks in advance.  Edit: forgive me for sounding desperate, but I cannot make due with an explanation of how to obtain such a formula. I want the formula.   An analogy for you if I have yet to make myself clear: suppose I was asking for the area of a square with side length $s$. The answers I have received so far for my question are akin to saying "multiply $s$ by itself" or "use the area formula for a square". The answer I am looking for is akin to saying "$s^{2}$". I need the formula. And please, no expressions with differentials, nor matrices, or any of that. I need to know how to compute the metric by using the complex numbers in the indicated set that I have identified with $P$. Show that $B$ is diagonalizable if If $AB=BA$ and $A$ has distinct real eigenvalues We were asked to prove the following:  Let $ A $ be an $n \times n$ matrix with $n$ distinct real eigenvalues. If $AB=BA$, show that $B$ is diagonalizable.   It was suggested I show that an eigenvector of $A$ is also an eigenvector of $B$. I am both having trouble doing this and failing to see how I would complete the proof after. Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks The functions of each pair are inverse to each other. For each pair, check that both compositions give the identity function.  $F: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ and $F^{−1}:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ are defined by $F(x)=3x+2$ and $F^{−1}(y)=\dfrac{y−2}{3}$. for all y ∈ R  My attempt:     Inverse Function  For each particular but arbitrarily chosen $y \in \mathbb{R}$, according to the definition of $f^{-1}$, $f^{-1}(y) = \dfrac{y-2}{3}$ is a unique real number $x$ such that $f(x) = y$. \begin{align*} F(x) &amp; = y\\ 3x + 2 &amp; = y\\ x &amp; = \frac{y-2}{3} \end{align*} Therefore, $f^{-1}(y) = \frac{y-2}{3}$.  Compositions of Functions  The functions $g \circ f$ and $f \circ g$ are defined as follows: $$(g \circ f)(x) = g(f(x)) = g(3x + 2) = 3x + 2$$  for all $x \in \mathbb{Z}$. reversing plot axis for Plot, LogPlot, LogLogPlot The dimension of the Hilbert space is determined by the number of independent basis vectors. There is a infinite discrete energy eigenbasis $\{|n\rangle\}$ in the problem of particle in a box which can be used to expand a general state $|\psi\rangle$ as: $$|\psi\rangle=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty} C_n |n\rangle$$ Here, the basis implies that the Hilbert space has countably infinite number of basis vectors. But one could well expand $|\psi\rangle$ in any other basis as well, say the continuous position basis. Then that superposition, $$|\psi\rangle=\int dx \psi(x)|x\rangle$$ is also possible. But this basis $\{|x\rangle\}$ is continuous and uncountably infinite. Such sets cannot be equal because they have different cardinality. Then my questions is how many independent basis vectors are really there in this Hilbert space? Suppose $f$ is an isometric (i.e., distance preserving) function on $\mathbb{E}^2$ such that $f(0,0) = (0,0)$.  Then I want to show that $f$ is necessarily linear.  Now $f$ is linear iff $f$ is both additive and homogenous.  The following is an attempted proof for the homogeneity of f (missing the last step); still more, I have no idea how to argue for the additivity of $f$.  Any ideas?  Let $x \in \mathbb{E}^2$ and $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$   We know that $\forall x \in \mathbb{E}^2$, $\Vert x - 0 \Vert = \Vert f(x) - f(0)\Vert = \Vert f(x) - 0 \Vert$ so that $\Vert x\Vert = \Vert f(x)\Vert$.  From this we immediately have the following facts:  $\Vert x \Vert = \Vert f(x) \Vert$  $\Vert \alpha x \Vert = \Vert f(\alpha x) \Vert$  We can then argue that since $\Vert \alpha x\Vert = |\alpha| \Vert x \Vert = |\alpha| \Vert f(x) \Vert = \Vert \alpha f(x) \Vert$, we also have that $\Vert f(\alpha x) \Vert = \Vert \alpha f(x)\Vert$.  Finally, we have that  $\Vert \alpha x - x \Vert = \Vert \alpha f(x) - f(x) \Vert$   iff $ \Vert (\alpha - 1)x \Vert = \Vert (\alpha - 1) f(x) \Vert$   iff $|\alpha - 1| \Vert x \Vert = |\alpha - 1| \Vert f(x) \Vert$  Since the last of these statements is in fact true, we now have $\Vert \alpha x - x \Vert = \Vert \alpha f(x) - f(x) \Vert$ as desired.  Now at this point it seems like I have all of the facts required to assert that $f(\alpha x) = \alpha f(x)$, but I can't figure out how to formally state why without illegally appealing to visual intuition.  Any ideas? Vectorization operator