cp: ./public.generic-pc.icns: Operation not permitted
How do I disable System Integrity Protection (SIP) AKA "rootless" on macOs [OS X]
Order of an element in a finite cyclic group Let $G$ be a cyclic group of order $m$ generated by an element $a$.  I want to show that the order of $a^k$ is $m/d$, where $d:=\gcd(k,m)$.  I have a simple proof, but want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything since the other proofs I've seen (such as in Dummit and Foote) look more complicated.    The order of $a^k$ is the cardinality of the set $\{a^{ks}: s \in \mathbb{Z}\}$, which equals the cardinality of the set $\{a^{ks} a^{mt}: s,t \in \mathbb{Z} \}$ since $a^m$ is the identity.  But the set $\{ks+mt: s,t \in \mathbb{Z} \}$ is the set $d \mathbb{Z}$ by the basic properties of integers. So we have that the cardinality of the set is $| \langle a^k \rangle| = |\{1, a^d, a^{2d}, \ldots, a^{m-d} \}| = m/d$. What is the difference between # and . when declaring a set of styles for an element and what are the semantics that come into play when deciding which one to use? How do I cherry pick packages from a PPA? Why Java needs Serializable interface? We work heavily with serialization and having to specify Serializable tag on every object we use is kind of a burden. Especially when it's a 3rd-party class that we can't really change.  The question is: since Serializable is an empty interface and Java provides robust serialization once you add  implements Serializable - why didn't they make everything serializable and that's it?    What am I missing? Homology of $S^1 \times (S^1 \vee S^1)$ I'm trying to solve question 2.2.9(b) in Hatcher's Algebraic Topology.   Question: Calculate the homology groups of $X=S^1 \times (S^1 \vee S^1)$.  My attempt: I try to use the Mayer-Vietoris sequence.   Let $A=S^1 \times (S^1 \vee \text{small bit}) =S^1\times S^1$ and $B=S^1 \times ( \text{small bit} \vee S^1)=S^1 \times S^1$. (Unsure how to express this, but hopefully this is clear enough.)   Then $A\cap B=S^1\times \{\text{point}\}=S^1$ and $A\cup B=X$.  The Mayer-Vietoris sequence then gives us an exact sequence in reduced homology as follows:  $$0 \to \mathbb{Z}^2 \to \tilde{H}_2(X) \to \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}^2 \to \tilde{H}_1(X) \to 0.$$  Is it possible from this exact sequence to determine the homology groups, in some algebraic fashion? Or do I need to determine what the maps are? How do I determine the maps? I just watched a TV show and the guy says:     I ain't trying to fight with nobody with a baby.   So here, I can't understand the "nobody" since it make no sense to me, but it sounds like anybody, and if it's "I ain't trying to fight with anybody with a baby." that makes sense to me. Is it possible to pagebreak aligned equations? The report I'm writting features a lot of long, multiple lines equations. To reduce visual polution I've been using an aligned environment nested inside equation. This way (unlike just using an align environment) I get only a single label for all the lines.  The problem is that so many long equations often need to be broken into two pages, otherwise I get lots of blank vertical space in the document. However the aligned environment does not allow the \displaybreak command.  Is there an alternative way to achieve a pagebreak inside an aligned equation?  Here's a sample ofthe equations I'm using  \begin{equation}     \begin{aligned}     ...\\     ...\\  %I need to pagebreak here     ...\\ \end{aligned}\end{equation} I am trying to copy specific attribute table rows from one shapefile to a new shapefile that will contain only the specified rows in its attribute table, that is, if a field GDP_TOP10 = 1.   I am using this at the moment:  #Grab rows using Search Cursor with WHERE clause rows = arcpy.SearchCursor("C:/CGDP.shp", "GDP_TOP10 = 1") for row in rows:     arcpy.CopyFeatures_management("CGDP.shp", "New.shp") del row del rows   However, this just copies the entire shapefile, not the rows I want to select with the cursor. If I execute a print statement under my for loop instead, it works and prints only the relevant fields, but the copy to new shapefile command does not seem to copy specifically.   Is there a different ArcPy command to only copy rows that match a query? Removing nodes from graphs such that one is dependent on other - ZIO $2010$, P$1$ Greetings Community! The above problem you see is a combinatorics problem I could not solve. :( This problem is from ZIO $2010$, P$1$.     Here is what I did: Observe that every graph can be divided into "sub-groups" which may help in solving. We first remove the empty set. Then the singleton set. Consider the bigger but smaller than the sub-parts example:    The singleton sets are $\{4,5,6\}$ which are at the least position in the graph.   The dual sets are $\{2,4\}, \{3,5\}, \{3,6\}$, the bottom - two portions in the graph. The triplet sets are $\{2,4,5\}, \{4,5,6\}$ which we may manually count but for the bigger graphs in the sub-part, this may prove to be difficult and this is where I am stuck.   Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Why is gravity such a unique force? My knowledge on this particular field of physics is very sketchy, but I frequently hear of a theoretical "graviton", the quantum of the gravitational field.  So I guess most physicists' assumption is that gravity can be described by a QFT?  But I find this weird, because gravity seems so incredibly different from the other forces (yes, I know "weirdness" isn't any sort of scientific deduction principle).  For relative strengths:   Strong force: $10^{38}$ Electromagnetic force: $10^{36}$ Weak force: $10^{25}$ Gravity: $1$   Not only does gravity have a vastly weaker magnitude, it also has a very strange interaction with everything else.  Consider the Standard Model interactions:    No particle (or field) interacts directly with all other fields.  Heck, gluons only barely interact with the rest of them.  So why is it then that anything that has energy (e.g. everything that exists) also has a gravitational interaction?  Gravity seems unique in that all particles interact through it.  Then there's the whole issue of affecting spacetime.  As far as I'm aware, properties such as charge, spin, color, etc. don't affect spacetime (only the energy related to these properties). Joda Time: How to get dates of weekdays on some date interval? Why are two universal objects isomorphic? Skype window problem in Ubuntu 14.04 Maximal Ideals in Ring of Continuous Functions Dummit and Foote, 7.4.33(a): Let $R$ be the ring of all continuous functions $[0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$ and let $M_c$ be the kernel of evaluation at $c \in [0,1]$, i.e. all $f$ such that $f(c) = 0$. Show that if $M$ is a maximal ideal in $R$ then $M = M_c$ for some $c$.    I am aware of proofs that use the compactness of $[0,1]$; however I have been told that a simpler proof exists using only the isomorphism theorems for rings along with basic facts about ideals. I have tried on my own to prove it this way but still have no success; is it possible?  (My attempts go something like: since $M$ is maximal, the quotient ring $R/M$ is a field. Then it would be nice to use the fact that $R/M$ has no zero divisors, but I can't quite make it work. Alternatively, consider $M \cap M_c$.) Prove that if $A$ is transitive, then $\mathcal{P}(A)$ is transitive too. My book on set theory says     Prove that is a set $A$ is transitive, then $\mathcal{P}(A)$ is also transitive, where $\mathcal{P}(A)$ is the power set of $A$.   I don't know understand how. Let $A=\{a,b\}$. Clearly it is transitive. Now $\mathcal{P}(A)=\{\{a\},\{b\},\{a,b\},\emptyset\}$. This is clearly not transitive. What happens when a caster targets an object that looks like a creature with a spell that targets only creatures? There are many spells which explicitly target creatures:     Choose one creature within range   The target creature is normally supposed to make a saving throw in this case.  What happens when the caster chooses a creature, that is actually an object? For instance, a scarecrow, a mannequin, an illusion, or a corpse.  Examples:   An evil mage is hiding in the bushes. He casts an illusion of himself on the road, using the Silent Image spell. A PC sorcerer walks down the road, sees the illusion and casts Magic Missile on it. A cleric is standing near a pile of dead bodies. He has suspicions that a few corpses are actually undead creatures. He casts Sacred Flame on every corpse, see which if them succeed, hence, reveals the undead. A wizard casts Acid Splash on a mannequin, trying to damage it with acid.   Possible outcomes I can think of are:   The caster cannot even try to cast the spell, regardless of their information about what the target actually is. The caster tries to cast the spell, the casting fails, not expending the spell slot. The caster casts the spell, it expends the spell slot, then fails. The caster casts the spell, but it hits the original and not the illusion. The caster casts the spell, it flies to the target illusion but deals no damage to it (passes through it).   References in the rules and Sage advice  I was trying to investigate, but it didn't make things clearer:    has an answer, that Magic Missile won't hit. It says nothing about if it can be targeted at all, it leaves it up to the DM. Magic Missile automatically finds the original, even when the caster targets an illusion. At least . Now . This supports the counter-intuitive option 4.   on the other hand   , if there were no perceivable effects (let's say you can try to cast the Command spell on an illusion). That assumes that casters can waste their spells on illusion, which means they at least can target it. This supports options 3 and 5. Simple bijection $\mathbb N_0 \times \mathbb N_0 \to \mathbb N_0$ I'm looking for a 'simple' bijection $$ \pi \colon \mathbb N_0 \times \mathbb N_0 \to \mathbb N_0, $$  where 'simple' in this context means that it should be as easy as possible to define and it should be self-evident that said function is in fact a bijection. It's a quest for convenience - not minimal complexity in any rigorous sense.  Here are a couple of examples I came up with - none of which satisfy both requirements:   Let $\pi(m,n) = c(2^m3^{n+1})$, where $c \colon \{2^m3^{n+1} \mid m,n \in \mathbb N_0 \}\to \mathbb N_0$ is the order isomorphism (or in fact Mostowski collapse) of its domain under the natural ordering, Let $\pi(m,n) = \langle n,m \rangle$ - Gödel's pairing function, Let $\pi(m,n) = m \oplus n$ - the number resulting from '' $m,n$ (where we imagine both $m$ and $n$ as in infinite decks of cards whose $i$th element is labeled with its respective $i$th digit). ... Do electrons really perform instantaneous quantum leaps? This is not a duplicate, non of the answers gives a clear answer and most of the answers contradict.  There are so many questions about this and so many answers, but none of them says clearly if the electron's change of orbitals as per QM can be expressed at a time component or is measurable (takes time or not), or is instantaneous, or if it is limited by the speed of light or not, so or even say there is no jump at all.  I have read this question:      where Kyle Oman says:     So the answer to how an electron "jumps" between orbitals is actually the same as how it moves around within a single orbital; it just "does". The difference    is that to change orbitals, some property of the electron (one of the ones described by (n,l,m,s)) has to change. This is always accompanied by emission or absorption of a photon (even a spin flip involves a (very low energy) photon).   and where DarenW says:     A long time before the absorption, which for an atom is a few femtoseconds or so, this mix is 100% of the 2s state, and a few femtoseconds or so after the absorption, it's 100% the 3p state. Between, during the absorption process, it's a mix of many orbitals with wildly changing coefficients.      where annav says:     A probability density distribution can be a function of time, depending on the boundary conditions of the problem. There is no "instantaneous" physically, as everything is bounded by the velocity of light. It is the specific example that is missing in your question. If there is time involved in the measurement the probability density may have a time dependence.   and where akhmeteli says:     I would say an electron moves from one state to another over some time period, which is not less than the so called natural line width.     where John Forkosh says:     Note that the the electron is never measured in some intermediate-energy state. It's always measured either low-energy or high-energy, nothing in-between. But the probability of measuring low-or-high slowly and continuously varies from one to the other. So you can't say there's some particular time at which a "jump" occurs. There is no "jump".     where annav says:     If you look at the spectral lines emitted by transiting electrons from one energy level to another, you will see that the lines have a width . This width in principle should be intrinsic and calculable if all the possible potentials that would influence it can be included in the solution of the quantum mechanical state.   Experimentally the energy width can be transformed to a time interval using the Heisneberg Uncertainty of   ΔEΔt>h/2π   So an order of magnitude for the time taken for the transition can be estimated.     So it is very confusing because some of them are saying it is instantaneous, and there is no jump at all. Some are saying it is calculable. Some say it has to do with probabilities, and the electron is in a mixed state (superposition), but when measured it is in a single stable state. Some say it has to do with the speed of light since no information can travel faster, so electrons cannot change orbitals faster then c.  Now I would like to clarify this.  Question:   Do electrons change orbitals as per QM instantaneously? Is this change limited by the speed of light or not? "Series" – a noun of multitude similar to "lot", "majority", "percentage", "proportion"– verb agreement According to Garner's fourth edition  Though serving as a plural when the need arises, series is ordinarily a singular noun. But it is also a noun of multitude, so that phrases such as a series of things take a plural verb. However, the collocation there {has been - is} a series has predominated in print sources. Common nouns of multitude: lot, majority, mass, minority, multitude, percentage, proportion, variety.  However,  reads  When it has the singular sense of &quot;one set,&quot; it takes a singular verb, even when series is followed by of and a plural noun: A series of lectures is scheduled.  Are these dissimilar usages stylic advice? Secondly, the inversion after there also chooses singular elsewhere; why is it so?  When the verb precedes the noun percentage, a singular verb is required. That is, a higher percentage of them are, but there is a higher percentage of them. What is $n!$ when $n=0$?