Split a large file into smaller files and then integrate them to get the original file
How to split larger files into smaller parts?
Gauss law question with regard to this example I am really confused in Gauss law.  Why do E3 and E2 pointing up? and also E1 pointing down?  The lecture note said infer from symmetry and you will get the following but I dont really understand. Could anyone explain to me? I am new to gauss law. Non-ASCII characters in external links I'm very new to classical propositional logic, and my lecturer is using a system with the following axioms:  A1. X→(Y→X)  A2. (X→(Y→Z))→((X→Y)→(X→Z))  A3. (¬Y→¬X)→(X→Y)  Use uniform substitution and Modes Ponens (MP) as rule of inference. Deduction Theorem also allowed.  I'd like to deduce the following:  (a) X, Y ⊢ ¬(X→(¬Y)) (conjunction, but expressed in terms of NOT and IMPLIES)  (b) X→((X→Y)→Y)  (c) (X→Y)→(((¬Y)→X)→Y)  (d) (((¬Y)→X)→Y)→(X→Y)  Remark: The last two are to show that the axiom (A3) can be replaced with a different axiom:  B3. (¬Y→¬X)→(((¬Y)→X)→Y).  Solution: Bram28 proves (b) and (c) below. I demonstrate (a) and (d).  (d) is alright; first, I claim that X, ((¬Y→X)→Y) ⊢ Y.  Axiom (A1) gives ⊢X→(¬Y→X) so that ((¬Y→X)→Y)⊢X→Y by Hypothetical Syllogism (HS), which Bram28 shows to be valid.  Now that we have ((¬Y→X)→Y)⊢X→Y just apply the deduction theorem to get what we want: ⊢((¬Y→X)→Y)→(X→Y).  (a) is slightly trickier. Axiom (A1) gives ⊢ Y→(X→Y) so that X, Y ⊢ (X→Y).  Next, by part (b), we have as a theorem that ⊢X→((X→¬Y)→¬Y).  Therefore X, Y ⊢(X→¬Y)→¬Y.  But ⊢(¬¬(X→¬Y))→(X→¬Y) by DN Elim, which Bram28 shows to be valid.  By HS, X, Y ⊢(¬¬(X→¬Y))→¬Y.  By Axiom (A3) and MP, X, Y ⊢(Y→¬(X→¬Y)).  Also, rather trivially X, Y ⊢Y.  Finally by MP we conclude X, Y ⊢¬(X→¬Y) as required. How do I move a line in a text file up or down by one line? When should I create a new tag? How do I request a new tag if I don't have enough rep? Prove that free modules are projective Variable with colon dash ${VAR:-} I have a website the seems to load very slowly. When I run a speed test on it I see there seems to be a 6 secound gap before the HTML loads. Images and JS scripts load very fast after that point.  You can see in the pic below the yellow 'wait time' bars:    This seems to be consistant no matter what the HTML content on the page is.  This site is using a CMS (ModX Revo) so HTML is actually stored in an SQL database and brought forth by PHP, but I've never experienced this issue before.  Would anyone know what is causing this and how I could speed it up? Is there any shorter pronunciation of W than double-U? When spelling, every letter in the Alphabet is pronounced by a single syllable, with the only exception of W being pronounced "double-U". (Fun fact, in German it's approximately pronounced like the "ve" in very, but in some strike of cosmic justice Y is pronounced "Yps-e-lon") Why is that? Is there any at least semi-officially accepted one-syllable alternative pronunciation of W?  I checked some related post, e.g. , but they are more concerned with the "Why?" instead of the "Why not different?" In most electrical circuits with a relay, a diode is connected in parallel to the coil of the relay. Why? Is it always a good practice? Taking a screenshot (within X) How can I take a screenshot in X.org?  I am unsure if the Print Screen button will "just work" and I don't know how I would go about testing it. About $\lim \left(1+\frac {x}{n}\right)^n$ I was wondering if it is possible to get a link to a rigorous proof that  $$\displaystyle \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac {x}{n}\right)^n=\exp x$$ Restarting with new account on iOS/GameCenter Let $(X, d(x,y))$ be a complete metric space. Prove that if $A\subseteq X$ is a closed set, then $A$ is also complete.  My attempt: I tried to prove that every Cauchy sequence $(b_n)$ of points of $A$ converges to a point $b\in A$. However could not figure out the exit way. Maybe I am on the wrong track. Could you please help me?  edit: More from my attempt:  Suppose $A$ is a closed set and let $(x_n)$ be a sequence of points $A$ such that $\lim_n x_n\to b$.  Suppose now that $A$ has the property that $b\in A$, whenever $x_n$ converges to $b$. We know that every element of $x_n$ which is convergent in $X$ also converges to a point in $A$. Since $x_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in $A$, it must converge to a point $y\in A$. But the limit of a convergent sequence is unique.   Take $x\in A$ and select an appropriate $n$, which enables $x_n$ to converge to a point $x$ in $X$. Since the limit is unique, it must follow that $x=y$. Thus $x\in A$ and $A$ is closed.   If $A$ is a closed subset of $X$, then any Cauchy sequence of a point in $A$ is convergent in $X$ and hence converges to a point in $A$. Thus $A$ is complete. Ubuntu 14.04, problem when install gstreamer1.0-libav, unmet dependencies Characterizing Dense Subgroups of the Reals Spam gets fairly heavily punished - 100 reputation penalty, if I recall correctly, and the content itself gets hidden in the revision history.  Now if we just have some rubbish:     dfajiojaifojadiofjadhigaowkokaomdiovnuiyhioqejgioqejgio   I'm not talking about someone posting a question or comment as an answer (i.e. possibly just not knowing the rules or being frustrated with not having the required privileges), or someone making some really horrible attempt at answering the question, I'm talking about an answer that clearly shows absolutely no observation of any content on the page.  This, in my opinion, causes a similar amount of harm to the site - I'm inclined to say the fact that someone posts spam isn't as important as the fact that they're posting something that needs to be deleted, since we're likely going to delete it pretty quickly, and they're (likely) behaving maliciously, or am I wrong?  Why don't we treat this equally harshly, or why do we treat spam as harshly as we do?    Side notes:  I'm sure I've seen a few times where users get punished for posting spam when their link is likely actually relevant to the question and useful (should I flag these? They are still link-only answers, so they shouldn't really come back, and often I'm just not sure enough). While false positives are bad, it seems worse that we're treating worse behaviour better.  I'm assuming that's not what "abusive" in this reason is referring to: (I'm also not sure, off the top of my head, how this one gets treated)     It is offensive, abusive, or hate speech When should a supervisor be an author? I understand that in a lot of big-lab fields it is common for the principal investigator to append their name to a paper even if they did not write the paper, design the experiment, or collect data since they spend energy securing funding, and managing the whole lab. What about for small labs?  What are the requirements for a supervisor to be included as an author on a paper, as opposed to just appearing in the acknowledgements? If you are working on your own projects independently of your supervisor, but using funding provided by your supervisor (how does this change when the funding provides resources versus just your salary), are you suppose to add them as authors or just acknowledge the source of funding? How to prove that r is a double root if and only if it is a root of a polynomial and of its derivative. Searching for questions that have ONLY a given tag (i.e. add a range operator for tags)