Special N character
How to look up a symbol or identify a letter from a math alphabet or other character?
I'm using an HP laptop running Windows 7 Home Edition.  The moment I reach the login screen the computer automatically types "ppppppppp" in the password place, luckily I have fingerprint login to counter that.  The moment I login, it keeps acting as if I'm typing 'p' repeatedly. I tried removing the button and cleaning under it but it was no use. I've tried restarting, uninstalling the keyboard driver, but it was no use.  I can't go to Control Panel because the moment I get there, it starts typing "pppppp" in the search field and I'm unable to find anything.  I'm typing this from my phone because going anywhere on my laptop seems impossible. I have this alias set in my system /etc/bashrc file:  alias root="sudo !!"   The intention of this being to run the last used command using sudo of course. When used, it of course appears to substitute the last command in history to the bashrc file upon shell initialization, and not the actual command that you would get if you were to run sudo !! in an interactive shell. I've also tried alias root="sudo fc -s" to no avail.  I realize this is probably something to do with how the BASH does command substitutions, but can someone explain why this is, and provide a usable substitute?  I'm running BASH version 3.2.51(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin13). I sold an investment in a standard brokerage account at a small loss because I needed the money for a down payment.  I still think it is a good investment, can I buy the same investment in a standard IRA without running into wash sale problems?  I will probably just wait the 30 days any way to avoid any headaches, but I want to know if there is a definitive answer on this.    Being as the cost basis in the traditional IRA doesn't matter, I wouldn't think there would be a problem. Question on the coefficients of $(1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4)^{496}$ Consider the expansion $$(1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4)^{496} = a_0+a_1x+\cdots+a_{1984}x^{1984}.$$   $\quad$ (a) Determine the greatest common divisor of the coefficients $a_3,a_8,a_{13},\ldots,a_{1983}$.      $\quad$ (b) Prove that $10^{340} &lt; a_{992} &lt; 10^{347}$.   Is there an easier way to solve this and is there a formula for the multisection for just the sum of the coefficients and not including $x^k$?  I thought of using the Multisection formula to prove (a). That is, $$\sum_{k \equiv r \pmod{m}}a_kx^k = \dfrac{1}{m} \sum_{s=0}^{m-1} \epsilon^{-rs} f(\epsilon^s x)$$ where $\epsilon$ is a primitive $m$th root of unity and $\displaystyle f(x) = (1+x+x^2+x^3+x^4)^{496}$.  Thus we have $r = 3, m = 5$ and so \begin{align*}\sum_{k \equiv 3 \pmod{5}}a_kx^k &amp;= \frac{1}{5} \sum_{s=0}^{4} w^{-3s} (1+w^s x+(w^{s}x)^2+(w^{s} x)^3+(w^{s}x)^4)^{496}\\&amp;=\dfrac{1}{5}\sum_{s=0}^4 w^{-3s}\left(\dfrac{(w^s x)^{5}-1}{w^s x-1}\right)^{496}\\&amp;= \dfrac{1}{5}\sum_{s=0}^4 w^{-3s} \left(\dfrac{x^{5}-1}{w^s x-1}\right)^{496}.\end{align*} Can't use Shortcut key on linux mint 19 XFCE How do I find out which dlls an executable will load? If Chrome is already open, it opens new sites (e.g. from Windows shortcuts, application shortcuts, or from the Run dialog) in new tabs of the existing instance.   I'd prefer to open new sites in a separate window (a new instance of Chrome).   I don't see that in the options - is it possible? My textbook explains the proof, which I don't understand:  "Consider two bases $v_1...v_p$ and $w_1...w_q$ of V. Since the vectors $v$ are linearly independent and the vectors $w$ span V..."  How exactly does $w$ span V?   The book then says the same for vectors $v$, that $v$ spans V and hence $p=q$, but I don't really understand how you can assume that given two sets of vectors that are basis, one set must span V. How do I programmatically get the field type of a specific field? Equation of the locus of the foot of perpendicular from any focus upon any tangent to the ellipse ${x^2\over a^2}+{y^2\over b^2}=1$ Find the equation of the locus of the foot of perpendicular from any focus upon any tangent to the ellipse ${x^2\over a^2}+{y^2\over b^2}=1$. will it also be an ellipse? Can bosons that are composed of several fermions occupy the same state? It is generally assumed that there is no limit on how many bosons are allowed to occupy the same quantum mechanical state. However, almost every boson encountered in every-day physics is not a fundamental particle (with the photon being the most prominent exception). They are instead composed of a number of fermions, which can not occupy the same state.  Is it possible for more than one of these composite bosons to be in the same state even though their constituents are not allowed to be in the same state? If the answer is "yes", how does this not contradict the more fundamental viewpoint considering fermions? Currently, the only way to link to a revision (clicking "link"), you just get  which shows what the post looked like at that revision:        Personally, I rarely use this and haven't ever found myself in a scenario (as far as I remember) where I would prefer the way it currently works to what I'm suggesting here.  Could we:   Add another link, or Change the current link   Such that it:   Displays the diff on a separate page (I'd prefer this, since the highlight and scroll thing doesn't always work properly - although perhaps it has something to do with loading images, so it might not apply here, or, if it doesn't, we could fix that instead), or          Highlights and scrolls to a diff, like what is done when you link to an answer () Word to describe the fear of unknown future Is it normal for BibTeX to replace similar author names with "------"? In my .bib file, I have two entries with exactly the same author names:  @article{Seshadrinathan2010A-Subjective-St,     Author = {K. Seshadrinathan and R. Soundararajan and A. C. Bovik and L. K. Cormack}, ....  @article{Seshadrinathan2009Study-of-Subjec,     Author = {K. Seshadrinathan and R. Soundararajan and A. C. Bovik and L. K. Cormack}, ....   When cited after each other, and typeset with the IEEEtran bibliography style, the .bbl file reads:  \bibitem{Seshadrinathan2010A-Subjective-St} K.~Seshadrinathan, R.~Soundararajan, A.~C. Bovik, and L.~K. Cormack, ``A   subjective study to evaluate video quality assessment algorithms,''   \emph{SPIE Proceedings Human Vision and Electronic Imaging}, 2010.  \bibitem{Seshadrinathan2009Study-of-Subjec} ------, ``Study of subjective and objective quality assessment of video,''   \emph{IEEE Transactions on Image Processing}, 2009.   As you can see, the author names have been replaced with ------. It looks like this in the final PDF:    Is this normal behavior? Using bm with eulervm gives inconsistent ‘’ characters I prefer to use bm package to bold math. However, I noticed that when used with eulervm, this gives inconsistent results for ‘&lt;’ and ‘>’ characters.  I wonder what causes it and can the usage bm be fixed to get proper ‘&lt;’.  \documentclass{article}  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}  %\usepackage{amsmath}  \usepackage[euler-digits,euler-hat-accent]{eulervm}  \usepackage{bm}  \begin{document}      \texttt{\hphantom{mathbold}\llap{bm}}: \quad $ 1 + 1 &lt; 3; \quad \bm{1 + 1 &lt; 3} $      \texttt{mathbold}: \quad $ 1 + 1 &lt; 3; \quad \mathbold{1 + 1 &lt; 3} $  \end{document} How can I check which DNS server am I using (in Linux)? I am using network manager and a wired connection to my university's LAN. (I am trying to find out why my domain doesn't get resolved) How do I calculate spoke length? "Your Sites" in Android left sidebar shown in unpredictable order In the Android app, left sidebar, there is an editable list of "Your Sites". In the editing pane, the sites are re-orderable (although awkwardly), and the order one places the sites in there is preserved, even after quitting the app and returning to this pane. One expects that order to be reflected in the "Your Sites" portion of the left sidebar when the editing pane is closed, but it is not.  I'm not sure what is determining the order of the sites in the left sidebar, it doesn't seem to be by date they were "pinned" into the list one wants to show, either. I'm somewhat new to using logistic regression, and a bit confused by a discrepancy between  my interpretations of the following values which I thought would be the same:    exponentiated beta values  predicted probability of the outcome using beta values.    Here is a simplified version of the model I am using, where undernutrition and insurance are both binary, and wealth is continuous:  Under.Nutrition ~ insurance + wealth   My (actual) model returns an exponentiated beta value of .8 for insurance, which I would interpret as:     "The probability of being undernourished for an insured individual is .8 times the probability of being undernourished for an uninsured individual."   However, when I calculate the difference in probabilities for individuals by putting in values of 0 and 1 into the insurance variable and the mean value for wealth, the difference in undernutrition is only .04. That is calculated as follows:   Probability Undernourished = exp(β0 + β1*Insurance + β2*Wealth) /                              (1+exp(β0 + β1*Insurance + β2*wealth))   I would really appreciate it if someone could explain why these values are different, and what a better interpretation (particularly for the second value) might be.     Further Clarification Edits As I understand it, the probability of being under-nourished for an uninsured person (where B1 corresponds to insurance) is:  Prob(Unins) = exp(β0 + β1*0 + β2*Wealth) /               (1+exp(β0 + β1*0+ β2*wealth))   While the Probability of being under-nourished for an insured person is:  Prob(Ins)= exp(β0 + β1*1 + β2*Wealth) /            (1+exp(β0 + β1*1+ β2*wealth))   The odds of being undernourished for an uninsured person compared to an insured person is:  exp(B1)   Is there a way to translate between these values (mathematically)? I'm still a bit confused by this equation (where I should probably be a different value on the RHS):  Prob(Ins) - Prob(Unins) != exp(B)   In layman's terms, the question is why doesn't insuring an individual change their probability of being under-nourished as much as the odds ratio indicates it does?  In my data, Prob(Ins) - Prob(Unins) = .04, where the exponentiated beta value is .8 (so why is the difference not .2?) How was the baby born in the start?