How to add a new object to another within an array
How to append something to an array?
combinatorics: sum of product of integer compositions Migrating from Evolution to Thunderbird On the commutative property of multiplication (domain of integers, possibly reals) $ab = ba$  This is, inherently, true. Some texts drop it like an axiom without any justification. But I'm a bit curious where it stems from or basically why/how it works. If anyone could enlighten me a bit further, I'd be most grateful. Peano axioms? From set theory? Help.  What bugs me with this definition is it's real world "application":  Let's say I have a power output of 5 W ( $kg\cdot m^2 \cdot s^{-3}$) and I want 30% of that power output (to have some units and natural context).  Naturally, 30% is 30 1/100 (% is the unit). For simplicity, let's express that as:  $30$%$ = 30/100 = 3/10 = 3d$ where $d = 1/10$, a simpler unit (because %W would look... Wrong?).  So 30% of power is then $5 W \cdot 3d$, and we can force it to "make sense" if we associate d with W or basically scale the unit of power by d (which is intuitively understood as being 10 times smaller then the output of 1 W) $dW$. And we want to scale these 5 units of $dW$ three times.  $5 dW \cdot 3$  But the commutative property says it is the same as scaling 3 units of $dW$ 5 times or:  $3 dW \cdot 5$  And the result is the same. This is the bit that hurts my head, the fact it is the same. I try to interpret the same as, for example 50 J of work, it's either applying 50 N over 1 m of distance or 1 N over 50 m of distance.    Down here is additional stuff I think I have (you don't have to read it if you know how to answer immediately). I don't claim it's correct, if anyone parses this information, feel free to correct me.  $m\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}{1} = n\sum\limits_{i=1}^{m}{1}$  This is how I've been trying to break it down, as it is repeated addition. It is repeated $n$ times and multiplied by $m$, and reverse on the right side. There is $x = m - n$, so when I multiply $n$ $m$ times, each repeated addition of $n$ lacks exactly $x$ to $m$.  $mn = nm$  $x = m-n$  $m(m-x) = (m-x)m$  $m^2 - mx = m^2 - mx$  $ true $  And yes, sadly, I realise that I am using the very property I'm trying to prove ($xm$ shifted as $mx$ on the right-hand side.)  And it even calls in the distributive property of multiplication over addition which I derive (for myself, informally) from the very nature of multiplication and the way we "process" numbers:  For example, number $55$ times $2$  $55 = 5 \cdot 10^1 + 5 \cdot 10^0 = 5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1$  $(5 \cdot 10 + 5 \cdot 1) \cdot 2$  This is the basis of our positional notation which appends digits of varying orders of magnitude or units together in a way it makes "sense". Each one is b times bigger than the one to the right. Basic stuff. It is why I expressed 10 and 1 explicitly, those are what I consider units in this case.  Now, from the definition of multiplication, which is at its heart just repeated addition, it is truly the same if you add together $2$ $50$ times and then again $5$ times or "all at once" (figuratively, we are always doing the former mentally) $2$ $55$ times.  That added together gives 110, which is true.  To me, the distributive property (in case of integer multiplication) is a repercussion of the very definition of multiplication which is repeated addition (evading strict concepts). I am not certain whether this is a good way to look at it. I cannot boot to the desktop because I filled the file system. How do I reclaim some space? My memory is completely full when I tried following the data recovery and copied the wrong file using command line tool Test Disk. As it was taking so long to copy, I turned it off and I realized I copied the wrong file. Now my laptop memory is now full and lead me to more problems.  I have had similar problems to :       Now my screen keeps blinking:   Can anybody help? Many thanks. Wish you all the best. A star's collapse can be halted by the  due to the Pauli exclusion principle. In extreme relativistic conditions, a star will continue to collapse regardless of the degeneracy pressure to form a black hole. Does this violate the Pauli exclusion principle? If so, are theorists ok with that? And if it doesn't violate the Pauli exclusion principle, why not? Prove $\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac {\sin(x)}{x} = 1$ with the epsilon-delta definition of limit. It is well known that   $$\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac {\sin(x)}{x} = 1$$  I know several proofs of this: the geometric proof shows that $\cos(\theta)\leq\frac {\sin(\theta)}{\theta}\leq1$ and using the Squeeze Theorem I conclude that $\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac {\sin(x)}{x} = 1$, other proof uses the Maclaurin series of $\sin(x)$. My question is: is there a demonstration of this limit using the epsilon-delta definition of limit? Search for emails from contacts with multiple email addresses The third formula on the  states that $$\varphi (mn) = \varphi (m) \varphi (n) \cdot \dfrac{d}{\varphi (d)} $$ where $d = \gcd(m,n)$.  How is this claim justified?  Would we have to use the Chinese Remainder Theorem, as they suggest for proving that $\varphi$ is multiplicative? Is there a word or phrase for two nouns or adjectives joined by a conjunction (usually "and") in a fixed sequence?        alive and well           fast and furious   hat and gloves   pen and pencil   law and order   wit and wisdom   salt and pepper   bacon and eggs   horse and carriage   Adam and Eve   ladies and gentlemen   loud and clear   heads or tails   yes or no   dead or alive Predicting the number of decimal digits needed to express a rational number How can I create that glitter tears effect and the sparkles? Why isn't Higgs coupling considered a fifth fundamental force? When I first learned about the four fundamental forces of nature, I assumed that they were just the only four kind of interactions there were. But after learning a little field theory, there are many other kinds of couplings, even in the standard model. So why isn't the Yukawa Higgs coupling considered a fifth fundamental force? To be a fundamental force, does there need to be a gauge boson mediating it? If GCD $(a_1,\ldots, a_n)=1$ then there's a matrix in $SL_n(\mathbb{Z})$ with first row $(a_1,\ldots, a_n)$ Let $n \geq 2$. Let $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n$ be $n$ integers such that $\gcd\left(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n\right) = 1$. Prove that there exists a matrix in $\operatorname{SL}_n\left(\mathbb{Z}\right)$ whose first row is $\left(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n\right)$.   Since the gcd of the integers $a_1,\ldots, a_n$ is $1$, there exists weights $x_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $a_1x_1+\cdots+ a_nx_n=1$. My two ideas are (a) to brute force construct an $n\times n$ matrix with first row $a_1,\ldots ,a_n$ and to construct the remaining rows such that the determinant is $\sum a_ix_i=1$ or (b) to use induction.  (a) (Constructive) This is tedious since once I find a way to construct the remaining $n-1$ rows to ensure that $a_1x_1$ appears in the determinant, I am not sure how to modify these $n-1$ rows to ensure  that only the terms $a_ix_i$ appear in the cofactor expansion. If such a matrix exists, I'd like to see it.  (ii) (Non-constructive) If I proceed by induction then the base case $n=2$ is settled since I can choose the 2nd row to be $-x_2, x_1$ so that the determinant is $a_1x_1-a_2(-x_2)=1$. However, I'm not sure how to use the inductive hypothesis to show that if I can construct such an $n\times n$-matrix then I can construct an $\left(n+1\right) \times \left(n+1\right)$-matrix with the desired property. In particular, if the gcd $(a_1,\ldots ,a_{n+1})$ is $1$, it is not necesarry that the gcd of any $n$ of these terms is $1$, so induction may not even apply here.  How can I construct such a matrix or prove that one exists (without necessarily constructing it)? What does a leading zero do for a php int? Differences between LuaTeX, ConTeXt and XeTeX Search a specific word and copy line to another Sheet I have done major updates to my website, and renamed all my URLs.  How can I tell Google that I have renamed these URLs and let Google refresh its index?  My website URL: http://www.pndmasr.com/  My sitemap: http://www.pndmasr.com/sitemap.xml  I have uploaded my sitemap via Google Webmaster Tools many times.  However, every time I search Google for "pndmasr", I still get results with old pages. I have waited more than 3 days but the problem remains. Any suggestions?  Is there a problem with my sitemap? Can I list the resources in a given package? Problem printing LaTeX from lua in lualatex I am having difficulty printing LaTeX from a lua function in a LaTeX document processed with lualatex (version 0.70.2). I have a sample that works (if I remove all newlines from the code) and a case that fails. I don't know why these get different results. Here is the sample that fails:  \documentclass{report} \usepackage{luacode} \begin{document}  \begin{luacode*} tex.sprint([[ \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | p{4.in} | }  \hline  {\bf File} &amp; {\bf Cards} &amp; {\bf Summary} \\ \hline  \end{tabular} ]]) \end{luacode*}   \end{document}   I get an error saying:  ! Misplaced \noalign. \hline -&gt;\noalign               {\ifnum 0=`}\fi \hrule \@height \arrayrulewidth \futurelet... l.22 \end{luacode*}   When I put all of the LaTeX code printed from lua on one line the code works fine:  \documentclass{report} \usepackage{luacode} \begin{document}  \begin{luacode*} tex.sprint([[ \begin{tabular}{ | l | l | p{4.in} | } \hline {\bf File} &amp;{\bf Cards} &amp; {\bf Summary} \\ \hline \end{tabular} ]]) \end{luacode*}   \end{document}   So I have a few question.  First, why does the first example shown above fail? It seems like something I am not aware of is being inserted into the generated LaTeX.  Also is there a way for me to see the actual LaTeX that is generated and processed so that I can debug issues like this better?  Is there a way to tell the lualatex to log the actual LaTeX it tries to process?  Any other suggestions for how to debug a problem like this? If A and B play a game with a fair coin such that A wins by getting consecutive TT for the first time, while B wins by getting a consecutive TH.  Who has higher probability of winning the game?   I tried the following method but not sure:  For A to win,     TT, HTT, HHTT ... that is, 2-k for each game length k   For B to win,     TH, HTH, HHTH ... that is, 2-k for each game length k   So ultimately I am getting same probability of each to win.