Find the absolute minimum of a function of $n$ variables
How to find a global minimum for $\frac{1}{2}x^tQx-b^tx$
Why are all nonzero eigenvalues of the skew-symmetric real matrices pure imaginary? Assume that $A$ is an $n\times n$  real matrix, i.e. $$A^T=-A.$$  Since $\det(A-\lambda I)=\det(A^T-\lambda I)$, $A$ and $A^T$ have the same eigenvalues. On the other hand, $A^T$ and $-A$ also have the same eigenvalues. Thus if $\lambda$ is an eigenvalue of $A$, so is $-\lambda$. If $n$ is odd, $\lambda = 0 $ is an eigenvalue.  A curious search in Google returns  the nonzero eigenvalues of $A$ are all pure imaginary and thus are of the form $iλ_1, −iλ_1, iλ_2, −iλ_2,$ … where each of the $λ_k$ are real.   Here is my question:     How can I prove the fact that "the nonzero eigenvalues of $A$ are all pure imaginary"? How to correctly enable Desktop Cube in Unity 3D? I have read several questions regarding how to fix an already enabled desktop cube or the problems it had in 11.04. But in 11.10, how can I correctly enable desktop cube in Unity 3D? What type of differential equation is $f'(x) = f(x/2)$ and how do you solve it? I have the following different equation $$f'(x) = f(x/2)$$ with $f(0)=10$. What type of DE is this, and how would you solve it? It seems $f(x)$ is likely to be some relative of $e^x$, since $f'(x) = f(x)$, which is close, but I don't even know what that type of DE is called with that $f(x/2)$ feature, so I'm not having any luck searching for a tutorial. The best candidate I've found was a &quot;delay differential equation&quot;, but that seems more suited to $f(x-3)$ than $f(x/2)$. I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I just wanted to confirm if they are the same thing. In new canon, anti-gravity is never mentioned. This option, which was present in the "Mouse and Touchpad" settings panel in previous versions, is for some reason absent in 16.04 LTS. Does anyone know why this is, and/or how to fix it? Thanks. Is there a proof from the first principle that the Lagrangian L = T - V? Is there a proof from the first principle that for the Lagrangian $L$,    $$L = T\text{(kinetic energy)} - V\text{(potential energy)}$$  in classical mechanics? Assume that Cartesian coordinates are used. Among the combinations, $L = T - nV$, only $n=1$ works. Is there a fundamental reason for it?  On the other hand, the variational principle used in deriving the equations of motion, Euler-Lagrange equation, is general enough (can be used to to find the optimum of any parametrized integral) and does not specify the form of Lagrangian. I appreciate for anyone who gives the  answer, and if possible, the primary source (who published the answer first in the literature).      Notes added on Sept 22: - Both answers are correct as far as I can find. Both answerers were not sure about what I meant by the term I used: 'first principle'. I like to elaborate what I was thinking, not meant to be condescending or anything near to that. Please have a little understanding if the words I use are not well-thought of. - We do science by collecting facts, forming empirical laws, building a theory which generalizes the laws, then we go back to the lab and find if the generalization part can stand up to the verification. Newton's laws are close to the end of empirical laws, meaning that they are easily verified in the lab. These laws are not limited to gravity, but are used mostly under the condition of gravity. When we generalize and express them in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian, they can be used where Newton's laws cannot, for example, on electromagnetism, or any other forces unknown to us. Lagrangian or Hamiltonian and the derived equations of motion are generalizations and more on the theory side, relatively speaking; at least those are a little more theoretical than Newton's laws. We still go to lab to verify these generalizations, but it's somewhat harder to do so, like we have to use Large Hadron Collider. - But here is a new problem, as @Jerry Schirmer pointed out in his comment and I agreed. Lagrangian is great tool if we know its expression. If we don't, then we are at lost. Lagrangian is almost as useless as Newton's laws for a new mysterious force. It's almost as useless but not quite, because we can try and error. We have much better luck to try and error on Lagrangian than on equations of motion. - Oh, variational principle is a 'first principle' in my mind and is used to derive Euler-Lagrange equation. But variational principle does not give a clue about the explicit expression of Lagrangian. This is the point I'm driving at. This is why I'm looking for help, say, in Physics SE. If someone knew the reason why n=1 in L=T-nV, then we could use this reasoning to find out about a mysterious force. It looks like that someone is in the future. The exact phrase from the book of Swan (the context is choosing the words permit or allow) -      The passive structure with it is only possible with permit   Having said that...     It is not allowed to smoke in the kitchen - incorrect     It is not permitted to smoke in the kitchen - correct   I feel absolutely fine for the incorrect sentence.   Your inputs please. Make me understand this. Is the "live" in "He only lived a few days after the accident" intrasitive or transitive? If $(Tx \mathbin{|} x) = 0$ for all $x$ then $T = 0$ Let $T$ be a linear operator on an inner product vector space $V$. I'd like to prove that if $$(Tx|x)=0 \quad \forall x \in V$$ then $T$ is the null operator. I can't figure out this proof using contradiction, do I have to choose an appropriate vector? I'm sorry if this question goes against the meta for posting questions - I attached all the "beware, this is a soft-question" tags I could.  This is a question I've been asking myself now for some time. In most areas, there's a "cut off age" to be good at something. For example, you're not going to make the NHL if you start playing hockey at 20. It just won't happen.  So my question then, how late is too late to start studying math and make a career out of it? By "start studying math" I mean, to really try to understand and comprehend the material (as opposed to just being able to do well in a formal, intuitional environment).   I don't mean this from a "do what you love, its not too late" motivational perspective. I mean this from a purely biological perspective; at approximately what age has your brain's capacity to learn effectively and be influenced by your learning stop? When does the biological clock for learning new math run out?  My reasoning for asking this question is (for those who care): I love math. Really I do. But , having spent the first 21 years of my life in sports/video games/obtaining a degree in a scientific field which I care nothing of/etc, despite all my best attempts at trying to learn math, am I just too late starting to ever actually be good enough at it to make it a career? I've almost completed my second degree (in Math), but find that in many cases, despite how I look at a problem, I lack the intuition to comprehend it. I'm going to single him out (sorry), only as an example, but Qiaochu Yuan is my age.   Note 1: If this question isn't a suitable post, I won't be offended at all if you vote to close - I know this question borders what's acceptable to ask.  Note 2: Thanks to everyone for reading and taking the time for the great responses. Really appreciate it! How to contact Canonical? So I am doing a College research project for my Computer Information Systems department and it is about alternative Linux server distribution for small businesses. From my findings I would really like for this research to actually take off into a Distribution project (Using Ubuntu as a base OS).   However I would like to rename the distribution as "Bizbuntu" or something related to that ("Biz" being shorthand for business) however I don't know if I can name the distribution without consent from Canonical.   So my question is do I have to contact Canonical about this, if so, does anyone know a mailing list or email that I can contact them about this? When drag force ($bV$) equals to object's weight (mg) then upward and downward force becomes equal. As a result the object comes to rest. If this is true, how is a body moving with constant velocity? Why does cout print char arrays differently from other arrays? I'm using C++ to understand how exactly pointers work. I have this piece of code using arrays, which I'm using just to understand how the equivalent works with pointers.  int main() {         int arr[10] = {1,2,3};         char arr2[10] = {'c','i','a','o','\0'};     cout &lt;&lt; arr &lt;&lt; endl;     cout &lt;&lt; arr2 &lt;&lt; endl; }   However when I run this, arr outputs the address of the first element of the array of ints (as expected) but arr2 doesn't output the address of the first element of the array of chars; it actually prints "ciao".  What is it that I'm missing or that I haven't learned yet about this? Iteration over std::vector: unsigned vs signed index variable What is the correct way of iterating over a vector in C++?  Consider these two code fragments, this one works fine:  for (unsigned i=0; i &lt; polygon.size(); i++) {     sum += polygon[i]; }   and this one:  for (int i=0; i &lt; polygon.size(); i++) {     sum += polygon[i]; }   which generates warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions.  I'm new in the world of C++, so the unsigned variable looks a bit frightening to me and I know unsigned variables can be dangerous if not used correctly, so - is this correct? Why is "our today's meeting" wrong? One of the answers to  question states that &quot;We shall discuss it in our today's meeting&quot;  is grammatically correct. To me, that sentence is clearly wrong. While in today's meeting is fine and in our today meeting is OKish (though at the very least clumsy), there's something about the possessive there (our today's) that makes it wrong for me. I would read that sentence as in our today's (as opposed to your today's) meeting. Similar to in our car's trunk where the our clearly modifies car and not trunk or car trunk, the our in our today's seems to be modifying today's and not meeting. So, my questions are i) is it actually grammatically wrong to say in our today's or is it just a question of usage? and ii) if it is indeed wrong, how can we explain its wrongness? PlotLegends won't generate automatically more than 15 labels in v10 Can you lookup a domains past nameserver & mx record history? recover data after using dd command Suppose $a_n \ge 0$ for all natural numbers $\Bbb{N}$ and $\sum{a_n}$ converges. Is it necessarily true that $\sum{(a_n)^2}$ converges?  I think yes.  Clearly as $a_n \ge 0$ it follows $(a_1+a_2+\dots+a_n)^2 \ge a_1^2+a_2^2+\dots+a_n^2 \ge 0$ and so $(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{a_n})^2 \ge \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{a_n^2} \ge 0$.  As we are told $\sum{a_n}$ converges to say $L$ where $L$ is a real number it follows $L^2 \ge \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}{a_n^2} \ge 0$ and so therefore $\sum{(a_n)^2}$ converges.  Is this correct? every permutation is either even or odd,but not both How we can show every permutation is either even or odd,but not both......I can't arrive at a proof for this ..... Can anybody give me the proof...  Thanks in advance...