Adding a UIButton in UITabBar
Add a UIButton as a subview to a UITabBar
The force of gravity is constantly being applied to an orbiting object.  And therefore the object is constantly accelerating.  Why doesn't gravity eventually "win" over the object's momentum, like a force such as friction eventually slows down a car that runs out of gas?  I understand (I think) how relativity explains it, but how does Newtonian mechanics explain it? Simple prime number generator in Python Is there any reason to use this-> I would like to show that the function $\frac{1}{x}$ is not uniformly continuous on $(0,1)$ using two approaches.   First Approach:   We have the fact that if a function $f$ is uniformly continuous on an open interval $(a,b)$, then the function $f$ is bounded on $(a,b)$. By using its contrapositive, since $\frac{1}{x}$ is not bounded on $(0,1)$, it is not uniformly continuous.  Second Approach:  Proof by definition. Note that the definition of non-uniform continuity is:  There exists an $\epsilon_0&gt;0$ such that for all $\delta&gt;0$, there exists $x,y \in (0,1)$ such that $|x-y|&lt;\delta$ but $|\frac{1}{x} - \frac{1}{y}| \geq \epsilon_0$.  Assume that $\delta &lt; 1$. Let $x = y + \frac{\delta}{2} \in (0,1), y &lt; \frac{\delta}{2} \in (0,1), \epsilon_0 = 1$. Then we have   $$|\frac{1}{x} - \frac{1}{y}| = |\frac{1}{y + \frac{\delta}{2}} - \frac{1}{y}| = \frac{\frac{\delta}{2}}{|y(y + \frac{\delta}{2})|} &gt; \frac{\frac{\delta}{2}}{(\frac{\delta}{2})(\delta)} = \frac{1}{\delta} &gt; 1 = \epsilon_0 $$  If $\delta \geq 1$, then let $\delta^{\prime} = \frac{1}{\delta}$ so that $\delta^{\prime} \leq 1$. The rest proceeds the same as above.   Question: Are my two approaches correct? Decision Tree in LaTeX with TikZ Grid line doesn't have to be included     \documentclass[10pt]{beamer}  \usetheme{default}  \usepackage{graphicx}  \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath}  \usepackage{tikz}  \usetikzlibrary{matrix}  \usepackage{adjustbox}  \usepackage{caption} \ usepackage{subcaption}   \setbeamercolor{title}{fg=black}  \setbeamercolor{subtitle}{fg=gray}  \setbeamercolor{footlinecolor}{fg=white,bg=green}  \setbeamertemplate{footline}[text line]{% \parbox{\linewidth}{\vspace*{-10pt} \textit{Where Wall Street Goes to School} \hfill \insertpagenumber} } \setbeamertemplate{navigation symbols}{} –  \begin{tikzpicture}[&gt;=stealth,sloped][scale=0.8]  \matrix (tree) [matrix of nodes, minimum size=0.25cm, column sep=2cm, row sep=1cm, ]  { &amp; $C_{i+1,j+1}$ \\ $C_{i,j}$ &amp;$C_{i+1,j}$ \\  &amp; $C_{i+1,j-1}$ \\   };  \draw[-&gt;] (tree-3-1) -- (tree-1-3) node [midway,above] {};  \draw[-&gt;] (tree-3-1) -- (tree-3-3) node [midway,above] {};  \draw[-&gt;] (tree-3-1) -- (tree-5-3) node [midway,below] {};  \end{tikzpicture}  \end{adjustbox} – Rights if we possess Carta di Soggiorno? I'm studying machine learning and every book I open I bump into chi-squared distribution, gamma-function, t-distribution, Gaussian, etc.   Every book I have opened so far only defines what the distributions are: they don't explain or give the intuition on where the specific formulas for the functions come from.   For example, why is chi-squared distribution the way it is? What is the t-distribution? What is the intuition behind the distribution? Proofs? etc.   I would like to have a clear and fundamental understanding of the most commonly used distributions so that every time later on when I see them, I truly understand what is a t-distribution, what is a Gaussian distribution and most importantly why are they the way they are.   It would be nice if the books / tutorials  can explain the concepts to a layman so that in order to understand them you don't already need to understand them x) Many books are like this, they don't fit for beginners :( I have a speed-reading program I purchased with uses dotnet2. However, dotnet2 doesn't run on 64 bit wine. How would I install dotnet2? Protons and Neutrons Overshoot Actual Mass? When I add up the mass of 6 protons and 6 neutrons in amu, I get a mass that is greater than the mass of carbon. I thought that it should be the other way around, because I have not including binding energy when I add up the mass of the protons and neutrons.  Proton: 1.007276466812 u  Neutron: 1.00866491600 u  6(1.007276466812)+6(1.00866491600)=12.099  Carbon: 12 u  Why is this so? What is the fallacy that privileges one person over another? I see this a lot, someone in a category of people attempts to shut down anyone with an opinion that is not from the same category. For example, people without children weighing in on parenting; the parent may say something like "well, since you don't have kids and I do, my position is of more validity than yours."  Another example: a drug user (of some kind) telling someone who has never done drugs and does not care to, "until you tried it, you have no right to judge me."  People frequently try to limit the consideration on opinions to those in their same group, while it is perfectly reasonable that the non-drug user, especially if they are a chemist or well read on the subject, may have an equally valid opinion, or even more valid. In fact some might even say that someone NOT in the category has a better chance of being objective and seeing the forest for the trees.  So what is the fallacy of trying to shut down opinions when the source of the opinion is not someone who has personally had the experience under discussion? Why do the $n \times n$ non-singular matrices form an "open" set? Validity and Equivalence of two definitions of the real exponential function The Problem :  We state the following two definitions of the real exponential function from the . We're interested in showing that the two definitions are valid $($i.e. the defining sequence/series does converge to a unique real number$)$ and that the two definitions are equivalent.   I'm stuck at a couple of points $($which are described in highlighted lines$)$. Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you!     Definition $1$. The exponential function can be defined as the following limit of a sequence $$\exp x := \lim_{n \to \infty} \left({1 + \frac x n}\right)^n$$      Definition $2$. The exponential function can be defined as a  $$\exp x := \sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac {x^n} {n!}$$   My Progress and two places where I'm stuck : Essentially the solution consists of three parts,  namely validity of definition $1$, validity of definition $2$ and equivalence of the two definitions.     Validity of Definition $1$. I'm stuck here! Can we show that the sequence $(a_n)$ given by $a_n = \left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n$ converges for every $x \in \mathbb{R} ??$ Is it eventually monotone and bounded $??$   Validity of Definition $2$. The  of the power series is $$r=\lim_{n \to \infty}\left| \frac{\frac{1}{n!}}{\frac{1}{(n+1)!}} \right|=\lim_{n \to \infty}\left| \frac{(n+1)!}{n!} \right|=\lim_{n \to \infty}(n+1)=+\infty$$ Thus the infinite series in the right-hand side of Definition $2$ converges to a unique real number for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$. Hence the definition is well-defined.  Equivalence of Definition $1$ and Definition $2$.  There's this  of Definition $1$ $\implies$ Definition $2$ in the Pr$\infty$fWiki page, but it's kind of under construction and I'm not really convinced by it. So I decided to try to take my own shot at it.  For all $n \in \mathbb{N} \cup \{0\},$ let  $$T_n=\left(1+\frac{x}{n} \right)^n, ~S_n=\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{x^k}{k!}$$ We have to show that $\lim_{n \to \infty} T_n = \lim_{n \to \infty} S_n$  Now, \begin{align} T_n &amp;= \left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n\\ &amp;= 1+n\cdot\frac{x}{n}+\frac{n(n-1)}{2!}\cdot\frac{x^2}{n^2}+\cdots +\frac{n(n-1)\cdots 1}{n!}\cdot\frac{x^n}{n^n}\\ &amp;= 1+x+\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\cdot \frac{x^2}{2!}+\cdots +\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\cdots \left(1-\frac{n-1}{n}\right)\cdot \frac{x^n}{n!} \end{align}  Clearly, $$S_n-T_n=\left\{1-\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\right\}\frac{x^2}{2!}+\cdots +\left\{1-\left(1-\frac{1}{n}\right)\cdots \left(1-\frac{n-1}{n}\right)\right\}\cdot \frac{x^n}{n!}\geq 0$$     I'm stuck at this point. Can we show that $S_n-T_n \leq B_n$ such that $B_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty ??$ Is Feyerabend confusing discovery and justification when he criticizes the scientific method? I am reading Feyerabend's "Against Method", where he uses Copernicus's (and Galileo's confirmation) discovery of the fact that the Earth orbits around the Sun and other examples to show that irrational approaches can lead to legitimate scientific progress. He then claims that no unified epistemic principle or principles can be used to define science, and that science is best characterized by anarchy.   Is he confusing the way scientific truth is discovered with the way scientific truth is epistemically justified?   Even if it is true that Copernicus, Galileo and others used irrational methods to arrive at valid scientific discoveries, why does that affect science's special epistemic status compared to other fields of inquiry? Install Nvidia driver instead of nouveau I've installed Ubuntu 14.04 and I'm experiencing a fuzzy/blurry screen and bad support for multiple screens.  I realized that Ubuntu installs nouveau as default, but I need to install nvidia drivers, so I tried this:   sudo apt-add-repository ppa:ubuntu-x-swat/x-updates apt-get update apt-get install nvidia-current apt-get upgrade       Now that nvidia is installed, you need to blacklist the nouveau driver   so it don’t pop out when you will reboot. Create or edit the following   file:  nano /etc/modprobe.d/blacklist-nouveau.conf       …and add these lines at the end:  blacklist nouveau blacklist lbm-nouveau options nouveau modeset=0 alias nouveau off alias lbm-nouveau off    I checked via the software &amp; updates if nvidia driver got installed successfully, and it says the driver installed is nvidia 304.117  I then tried to run:  lshw -c video | grep 'configuration'   and the result is that the driver is still nouveau:  configuration: driver=nouveau latency=0   So how do I install and use the nvidia drivers? How to perform a logistic regression for more than 2 response classes in R I want to predict the impact of oil price over a Colombian oil company's stock price. I plan to use a logistic regression for this with a categorical variable (Up or Down given the direction of the stock price). Here is part of my dataset:  Minute  ecopet  profit  sum_profit   direccion  cl1_chg   sum_cl1    direccion_cl1 571     2160     0       10           Up         -0.03     0.00      Down 572     2160     0        0           Neutral     0.07    -0.03      Down 573     2160     0       -5           Down       -0.08     0.04      Up 574     2160     0       -5           Down       -0.07    -0.04      Down 575     2160     5       -5           Down       -0.08    -0.11      Down 576     2165     0       -25          Down        0.00    -0.19      Down 577     2165     0       -25          Down       -0.05    -0.19      Down 578     2165     0       -15          Down       -0.17    -0.24      Down 579     2165     5       -15          Down       -0.06    -0.41      Down 580     2170     0       -20          Down        0.03    -0.47      Down 581     2170    -10       0           Neutral     0.04    -0.44      Down   My dependent variable is 'direccion'. But as you can see it has 3 response classes. I know that to implement a binary logistic regression in R the code is:  glm.fit=glm(direccion~direccion_cl1, data=datos, family=binomial)   I am working with intraday information and plan to predict what happens when the oil moves up/ down (in the previous 10 minutes) and how it impacts the stock price in the next 10 minutes.  Could anyone tell me how could I perform this? I don't really know how to perform the logistic regression with 3 response classes. Thanks! If $U_1$, $U_2,\ldots,U_n$ are proper subspaces of a vector space $V$ over a field $F$, and $|F|\gt n-1$, why is $V$ not equal to the union of the subspaces $U_1$, $U_2,\ldots,U_n$? Can I let my fake flash USB drive get its real capacity through low level format? Recently, I bought an USB flash drive which has a cool design.  The seller said it is 256GB however, I've already known that capacity would be fake. Anyway, I bought it cause of its cool design and want to use this USB flash drive anyway.  What should I do?  I've tried to find a proper tool(vid 1908 / pid 1320) but couldn't. Can I repair this through Low level format? Or partitioning this through Linux? wildcard * in CSS for classes I apologize if this question is posted on the wrong portion of the website, but I knew no better place to ask.  I've come to see that some effects, such as super-conduction may happen at either extremely low temperatures, or at extreme temperatures (the recent discovery of superconducting iron in the bowels of the earth, for one), and this is fascinating.  My question is: can (does?) the same principle be applied to quantum effects? Would it be applicable to, for example, say that although quantum effects happen at nano scales and below they may happen on a grand scale of say, the entire Universe (as a solitary unit)?  Can said quantum effects happen at moments of say, picoseconds after the Big Bang due to the turbulence of forces involves in such an event? Or even within the core of a dying star?  Thank you for any answers or clarification of my misinformation. /ɪ/ sound when not stressed I've seen that some words in English are pronounced with the /ɪ/ sound when the vowel is not stressed.  Some examples include: pocket /ˈpɒkɪt/, comet /ˈkɒmɪt/. But hundred /ˈhʌndrəd/.  Is there any pronunciation rule here when the words end in /t/?