Interpreting Odds Ratios For Logistic Regression
How to interpret regression coefficients in logistic regression?
Why is there a temperature gradient on Earth? I was thinking about why the poles are colder and I came out with three possible explanations.  1. The atmosphere blocks light beams coming to poles    The Sun is seen only slightly over the horizon at the poles, so the light beams have longer way to the poles. If only this case were true, then the total difference between the poles and the equator would be the same as the energy that was absorbed by the atmosphere.  2. Sun is only slightly over the horizon at the poles.    Poles are often in shadow of the parts of the Earth which are closer to the equator.  3. Poles are farther from the Sun    The longer is the way to Sun the lower is the chance to catch a light from the Sun.  Please, correct me wherever I'm wrong. I'd like to know   Which of these three is most correct?  How significant are the described effects of the other explanations? There are several unknown numbers in mathematics, such as optimal constants in some inequalities. Often it is enough to some estimates for these numbers from above and below, but finding the exact values is also interesting. There are situations where such unknown numbers are necessarily natural numbers, for example in Ramsey theory. For example, we know that there is a smallest integer $n$ such that any graph with $n$ vertices contains a complete or an independent subgraph of 10 vertices, but we don't know the exact value of $n$.  What kinds of unknown small (less than 100, say) integers are there? What are the smallest unknown constants which are known to be integers? Or, more rigorously, what is the smallest upper bound for an unknown but definable number that is known to be an integer?  I know that asking for the smallest unknown integer is ill-defined since we do not know the exact values. The more rigorous version of the question is well-posed, but I do not want to keep anyone from offering interesting examples even if they are clearly not going to win the race for the lowest upper bound.  An answer should contain a definition of an integer quantity (or a family of them) and known lower and upper bounds (both of which should be integers, not infinite). Conjectures about the actual value are also welcome. I have given one example below to give an idea of what I'm looking for. Get referenced node fields in twig Evaluating $\int\limits_0^{\pi} \frac{dx}{1+2\sin^2x}$ After making u substitution two times, I am getting indefinite integral as $$\int\limits\dfrac{dx}{1+2\sin^2x} = \dfrac{\arctan(\sqrt{3}\tan(x))}{\sqrt{3}}+ C$$  I am stuck at working the bounds because I am getting $0$ but the answer needs to be $\pi/\sqrt{3}$.  I think $\arctan(x)$ is defined in $-\pi/2 \lt x\lt\pi/2$ while making u substitution. However I don't see how to use this observation to my advantage. Can anybody help in getting the answer and understanding whats going on. Thanks ! 2.5 GB usable out of 4 GB of ram Let he who believes in this prophet speak now what he knows.       Let him who believes in this prophet speak now what he knows. How to mount read-write an ext4 partition on Windows? I want to use ext4 on my external HDD, but it must be cross-platform. (At least Linux, Win7 &amp; WinXP).  Unfortunately, I haven't found any proper driver allowing Windows to WRITE to ext4. I've found , but it only reads ext4.     9. ext4 extent read-only, no  size truncating and expanding support   More:     Supported Ext3/4 features:         flexible inode size: > 128 bytes, up to block size   dir_index:    htree directory index   filetype:     extra file mode in dentry   large_file:   > 4G files supported   sparse_super: super block backup in group descriptor   uninit_bg:    fast fsck and group checksum   extent:       reading, writing with no extending.   journal:      only support replay for internal journal         Unsupported Ext3/4 features:         journal: log-based operations, external journal   extent: size truncating &amp; expanding, file deletion   flex_bg: first metadata group   EA (extended attributes), ACL support      Also, I have found a patch for Ext4Fsd v0.50 ():     New: Matt Wu has made a new release 0.50 at   ext2fsd.com.  Support for ext4 extents and fix   for BSOD on Windows 7.   I don't think it will be safe. Also I've read some words about writing ext4 in Windows could cause data loss on the disk...  What is the External HDD used for? - First, it will store backups, then family movies, pictures. Some music, and etc. It will be connected to a Raspberry Pi, if I finally receive it. It won't really move, just when it is used to migrate computer's data to a new one. The largest files it will store are Clonezilla disk images (I don't know, if they will be large files or not).  Can someone provide a solution for this problem? Or is there NO important enough difference between ext4 and ext3, and I should use ext3? - (If yes, then can I use Ext2Fsd for that ext3 mount?)  Thank you! When the trace of the Frobenius homomorphism is zero? Let's consider an elliptic curve over a finite field $\mathbb F_p$.  The trace of the Frobenius homomorphism is defined as:  $$a_p=p+1-\#E(\mathbb F_p)$$  See for example .  I read that this value is zero if and only if the elliptic curve is supersingular. Unfortunately there is no proof give. So I am looking for a proof of this. (For example a good reference). Move partition data with dd to the right How do I loop through or enumerate a JavaScript object? Can't reset WordPress password I haven't logged onto my blog for years, and have, of course, forgotten the password. I click the 'Forgot' button and get a mail with a link, but that mail already says     Sorry, that key does not appear to be valid.   And sends me round the click to reset, receive a mail, click the link again etc. As if the timeout for password resets has been set to 0.5s or something.  This is a shared hosted blog, so I have full access to cPanel and all of the WP files via FTP, if that helps anything. Coulomb's Law states that the fall-off of the strength of the electrostatic force is inversely proportional to the distance squared of the charges. Gauss's law implies that the total flux through a surface completely enclosing a charge is proportional to the total amount of charge. If we imagine a two-dimensional world of people who knew Gauss's law, they would imagine a surface completely enclosing a charge as a flat circle around the charge.  Integrating the flux, they would find that the electrostatic force should be inversely proportional to the distance of the charges, if Gauss's law were true in a two-dimensional world. However, if they observed a $\frac{1}{r^2}$ fall-off, this implies a two-dimensional world is not all there is. Is this argument correct? Does the $\frac{1}{r^2}$ fall-off imply that there are only three spatial dimensions we live in? I want to make sure this is right before I tell this to my friends and they laugh at me. Spoilers from the Season 7 finale of Game of Thrones, "The Dragon and the Wolf".  In one of the final scenes, Jaime and Cersei are discussing Jaime's future with them, at which point       Cersei nods her head, signaling the kill order for 'The Mountain', yet 'The Mountain' pulled out his sword but why didn't he kill Jaime? I just started blender and one of the main things you have to do is to render to make an animation, but I can't seem to do that. Whenever I click Render and then render image or render animation, at the top of the screen it says 'No camera found in Scene "Scene". I don't know why this is happening. Continuity $\iff$ Preimage is closed whenever set is closed I'm trying to do the following:     Prove that a function $f : S\rightarrow T$ between two topological spaces is continuous iff $f^{-1}(C)$ is closed whenever $C\subset T$ is closed.   To show that the closed-set relationship implies continuity, notice that $T-C$ is open. The preimage of this open set is $f^{-1}\left(T-C\right)=S-f^{-1}(C)$, which is open by assumption ($f^{-1}(C)$ is closed). Of course, any open set $G\subset T$ can be written in the form $T-C$ by letting $C=T-G$. Thus, for every open set $G\subset T$, the preimage is open.  To show the implication in the other way, consider a closed set $C\subset T$. $T-C$ is open, so $f^{-1}(T-C)=S-f^{-1}(C)$ is open as well ($f$ is continuous), which means that $f^{-1}(C)$ is closed. Dynamic dispatch and binding After cruising through a lot of material online, and answers over here, my understanding of contravariant and covariant vectors are, in a finite-dimensional vector space, suppose we have a vector, which is contravariant to its basis. However, using the metric tensor, we can map this vector to a one form in the dual space, which acts as a vector space for this example. This one form, or covactor, varies similarly to the basis in our original vector space. However, the covectors have a different basis, which is the dual basis, and are expanded in terms of those. Here's where my confusion arises : Many diagrams over the internet give a geometric picture of the scenario, by claiming that contravariant components of an 'arrow' are found by drawing parallel lines along the axes, and checking where they intersect. Co-variant components could be found by sketching the perpendicular lines on these axes. So, these materials are treating covariant and contravariant as different representations of the same arrow, while I'm inclined to believe they are completely different. However, if we let go of rigour, in exchange for a 'more' geometric understanding, I think we are allowed to do this. The diagrams are usually of the form :  However, even if we assume that contravariant and covariant are different representations of the same object, this particular diagram still seems wrong to me. Particularly the locations of $x_1,x_2$. In this diagram, they are located on the span of the original basis. Shouldn't covector components be located on the span of the dual basis ? This diagram suggests to me, that co-variant components have the same basis, as the contravariant ones. Shouldn't the diagram look more like this ?  This second diagram seems to fit the concept better according to me. This is because the dual vector must be 'contravariant' with respect to the 'dual basis'. This means, their components must be found out by sketching parallel lines along the span of the dual basis. These lines intersect the original axis at a right angle, which is to be expected, as dual bases are orthogonal to the original bases. Moreover, this second picture can also show in a much better way, how scaling up of the original basis, scales down the 'contravariant components' and the 'dual basis', which in turn scales up the 'covariant' components.This shows that the components of the dual vector are covariant to the original basis. This is something that is not readily visible in the first diagram. So, am I correct in assuming this second 'geometrical' representation is correct ? I know this doesn't make much sense, because as the mathematicians said, that vectors are completely different from one forms, and one forms should be represented using the number of hyperplanes intercepted by our arrow. However, I've seen most course material refer to it in this way, and frankly it is easier to visualize. However, most of this material used the first picture. Can anyone point out my mistakes, if any, and tell me if the first picture is correct, or the second one ? Or in this case 'less-flawed'. Mirror modifier mirrors on different axis/axes from the selected one(s) I have 2 objects a face and an ear. Mirror modifier works fine for the face. But when I use mirror modifier to duplicate the ear on X axis, it duplicates on Z axis. And when I use mirror modifier on Z axis it mirrors on X axis. How to correct the axis orientation? Springer llncs TOC not working I remember reading it while in middle school in English in the United States, so the latest it would have come out was 1998. I don't remember if it was all one author, or even the same universe. These are the stories I remember:   A man finds a way to create a medicine that prevents radiation poisoning (or possibly makes someone fireproof... it's a little confused in my head) and learns that part of the problem is finding a market for it. I vividly remember the inventor telling someone to not "let the doorknob ream you" as it slams shut. A bout of graffiti artists leads to the city buying anti-graffiti paint that dissolves any other paint put on top of it. After learning the futility of trying to paint over it, the protagonist consults with a friend and learns that the anti-graffiti paint will eat away at the paint above it at a steady rate, and will even eat successive layers of the anti-graffiti paint. he uses this property to engineer an animation involving a harlequin thumbing this nose at the officials even as they try to wash it away. Some guys (I want to say a gang) go to a clinic for an illegal nanotech transformation. The viewpoint character gets turned into a woman while a friend gets turned into a dog. After roaming about in their new forms, they return to find the clinic being raided, meaning there's no one to turn them back. I think I remember something bad happening to the one transformed into a dog where the transformation continued, erasing his human thought patterns. There was also a scene where the viewpoint character submitted to being sexually assaulted by his former friends as if it was simply to be expected given his form.   I don't remember if the first or the second story was the actual first story of the collection... I want to say that those are the order that they showed up as in the book.