Unable to start phantomjs with ghostdriver
Selenium/PhantomJS raises error
Limit $\lim\limits_{x\to0}{\frac{\ln{(e+x)}-e^x}{\cos^2{x} -e^x}}$ Compute: $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{n}(A_{n+1} − A_n)$ where $A_n = \frac{1}{n}(a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n)$ Let $\{a_n\}, {n\geq 1}$, be a sequence of real numbers satisfying $|a_n|\leq 1$ for all $n$. Define  $$A_n = \frac{1}{n}(a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n),$$ for $n\geq 1$. Then find $\displaystyle\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{n}(A_{n+1} − A_n)$ .    I proceed in this way  $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{n}(A_{n+1} − A_n)=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\sqrt{n}\left[\frac{1}{n+1}(a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_n+a_{n+1})-\frac{1}{n}(a_1 + a_2 + \cdots + a_{n})\right]=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\left[{(na_{n+1}-a_1 - a_2 - \cdots - a_n})\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}(n+1)}\right]$$  Please help me to complete from here prove inequality through mean value theorem /testfor for item enchantment What I have now is:  /testfor @a {SelectedItemSlot:0,Inventory:[{Slot:0b,id:"diamond_pickaxe"}]}   How can I use the /testfor command to test a specific slot for a specific item that is enchanted? When are infinities okay? I'm a little confused about how to handle infinities in physics. On the one hand, I always here things like infinities are not physically tenable answers. GR can't answer anything about the origin of the universe because of singularities. Throw away the radial solution that gives an infinite potential when solving the Laplace equation in spherical coordinates. But then there are other times that the infinities are okay. For instance, it is usually okay to set the reference point for your potential at infinity. There are certain times in David Tong's quantum field theory lecture notes where he seems to almost to hand wave away infinities. So, philosophically, physically, and mathematically when are infinities okay, and when are they not okay? Math Induction Proof: $(1+\frac1n)^n < n$ So I have to prove:      For each natural number greater than or equal to 3,   $$(1+\frac1n)^n&lt;n$$   My work: Basis step: $n=3$ $$\left(1+\frac13\right)^3&lt;3$$ $$\left(\frac43\right)^3&lt;3$$ $$\left(\frac{64}{27}\right)&lt;3$$ which is true.  Now the inductive step, assume $P(k)=\left(1+\frac1k\right)^k&lt;k$ to be true and prove $P(k+1)=\left(1+\frac1{k+1}\right)^{k+1}&lt;k+1$.   This is where I am stuck because usually you add or multiply by $k+1$ or some similar term. Phantom device showing on Google Play Does lower resolution result in better signal-to-noise ratio, given the same sensor size? With the release of the Canon EOS R5/R6, there have been many saying that they prefer the 20MP R6 camera over the 45MP R5 camera, due to its lower price but also because of &quot;better low-light performance.&quot; In camera comparison sites, I've also seen the sentiment that bigger pixels (lower resolution) = better low light performance. However, is this a myth? Here is my reasoning for this. Let's say that there are two full-frame sensors, one 20MP sensor and a 80MP sensor. According to many people, the 80MP sensor would be terrible for low-light photography since the pixels are smaller. However, each 2x2 block in the 80MP sensor could be mapped, and in post averaged to a 1x1 pixel, effectively making the image into a 20MP image. This could also be done in-camera as an option. Would this image have just the same amount of usable information as the image from the 20MP sensor? In other terms, since both sensors are 35mm sensors (i.e. equal area), the amount of light falling onto the sensor is the same. So, at the end of the day, there will be no difference between a 20MP image and a 20MP image that has been downsampled from 80MP, right? So their low-light performance would be the same. You even get an advantage from having the option to get 80MP photos if you wanted. Why do people say that a lower-resolution camera has better low-light performance, when it should theoretically be the same as one with higher resolution (all other factors equal)? Note: this question is about sensors with the same size but with different pixel density. Hence, it is different from  asking about different sensor sizes. I am aware that a full-frame camera will have better low-light signal due to its bigger area than an APS-C sensor, but what about the similarly sized sensors? Computing $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt[3]{3}+\cdots+\sqrt[n]{n}}{n}$. I have a problem with the calculation of the following limit. \begin{equation} \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1+\sqrt{2}+\sqrt[3]{3}+\cdots+\sqrt[n]{n}}{n} \end{equation} I do not know where to start! Thank you very much I have a problem with derivation of some function. This is related to computing the Poincare Map of Logistic Population model with Periodic harvesting. This function is:  $\phi(t,x_0) = x_0 + \int_{0}^{t} f(s,\phi(s,x_0)) ds $,  where $\phi(t,x_0)$ is a function: $\mathbb{R}  \times \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.  I'm trying to differentiate  equation of this function both sides  with respect to $x_{0}$. In book from this equation comes from the result of this differentiation is:  $\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_0} (t,x_0) = 1 + \int_0^{t} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_0} (s, \phi(s,x_0)) \cdot \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x_0} (s, x_0)ds$.  I can't understand expression under the integral. In this book it is explained that it is clear from chain rule.Could someone explain to me this transformation in easy way? I will be grateful for your help Best regards I keep reading in economics journals about a particular result used in random utility models. One version of the result is: if $\epsilon_i \sim_{iid}, $ Gumbel($\mu, 1), \forall i$, then:   $$E[\max_i(\delta_i + \epsilon_i)] = \mu + \gamma + \ln\left(\sum_i \exp\left\{\delta_i \right\} \right),  $$  where $\gamma \approx 0.52277$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.  I've checked that this makes sense using R, and it does.  The CDF for the Gumbel$(\mu, 1)$ distribution is:  $$G(\epsilon_i) = \exp(-\exp(-(\epsilon_i - \mu)))$$  I'm trying to find a proof of this and I've had no success.  I've tried to prove it myself but I can't get past a particular step.   Can anyone point me to a proof of this?  If not, maybe I can post my attempted proof up to where I get stuck. Desktop link to Eclipse Which set is unwell-orderable? In textbook it says that every well-orderable set is equipotent to an initial ordinal number. However, of course unwell-orderable cannot equipotent to any ordinal number, but is there any set is unwell-orderable? By axiom of regularity we know that every set is well-founded, so can we conclude that every set is well-orderable? If not, which set is unwell-orderable? XML serialization without null XMLArray How to remove desktop environments? I installed few environments that I wanted to try out on Ubuntu 12.04, but none of them worked at all. It could be that I installed them all at the same time, meaning the OS didn't get a chance to work everything out, but either way, they didn't work. I would now like to remove them.   The one's that I installed are Xubuntu/Xfce, Lubuntu/LXDE, Kubuntu/KDE, Fluxbox, OpenBox, cinnamon, and MATE. I installed them. Everything seemed to have been working properly until I actually tried to use the shells and nothing loaded at all. Except for Fluxbox, I think that one worked. I want to know of any way to repair or perhaps just remove the packages entirely. I might have already removed them because I did the apt-get remove command on all of them, but they were still in the list on the login screen. Undefined reference error for template method How can I deduce/identify an app from a notification icon? How can a distribution have infinite mean and variance? It would be appreciated if the following examples could be given:   A distribution with infinite mean and infinite variance. A distribution with infinite mean and finite variance. A distribution with finite mean and infinite variance.  A distribution with finite mean and finite variance.   It comes from me seeing these unfamiliar terms (infinite mean, infinite variance) used in an article I am reading, googling and reading a thread on the , and not finding it a sufficiently clear explanation. I also haven't found any explanations in any of my own textbooks. Is it a problem if a UK visa was issued but not used? Last year, my wife and I were issused 6-month visieor visas for the UK. She did not travel with me and, therefore, didn't use her visa. I am currently applying for a visitor visa for my daughter and myself.  Will the fact that my didn't use her visa have any negative affect on our new application? How do I get from Terminal 1 to Terminal 5 in Fiumicino Airport?