How to do a group by count using multiple columns in R?
Frequency count of two column in R
Why is $2\pi i \neq 0?$ Is the Schrödinger equation derived or postulated? I'm an undergraduate mathematics student trying to understand some quantum mechanics, but I'm having a hard time understanding what is the status of the Schrödinger equation.  In some places I've read that it's just a postulate. At least, that's how I interpret e.g. the following quote:     Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger.    -- Richard Feynman   (from the Wikipedia entry on the Schrödinger equation)  However, some places seem to derive the Schrödinger equation: just search for "derivation of Schrödinger equation" in google.  This motivates the question in the title: Is the Schrödinger equation derived or postulated? If it is derived, then just how is it derived, and from what principles? If it is postulated, then it surely came out of somewhere. Something like "in these special cases it can be derived, and then we postulate it works in general". Or maybe not?  Thanks in advance, and please bear with my physical ignorance. The wavefunction $\Psi(x,t)$ for a free particle is given by  $$\Psi(x,t) = A e^{i(kx-\frac{\hbar k}{2m}t)}$$  This wavefunction is non-normalisable. Does this mean that free particles do not exist in nature?  Why then do we use free particles $\psi(\vec{x}) = e^{ikz}$, for example, in scattering theory? My computer name in System Preferences &gt; Sharing is set to &quot;archos&quot;, but is showing as &quot;iphone&quot; on Terminal. It just started doing this after I loaded Xcode for doing iPhone development: Last login: Mon Nov  7 14:46:55 on ttys001 iphone:~ travis$   Any ideas what could be causing this? Add-on for blocking sites in Google Search When is it correct to capitalise 'earth'? Is there really any difference between the jackknife and leave one out cross validation? The procedure seems identical am I missing something? As the output of df -h shows here, something is eating up 5GB of free space. So, it's not available to use.   I'm also noticing sometimes that the hard disk gets filled up to 100% sometimes. So, I had to restart the machine or delete some unncessary files. Only noticed these in /home partition. Don't know whether these two are related, but appreciate if anyone can put some insight into this.  $ df -h Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda8             100G   92G  2.7G  98% /home Is it possible to have an object ignore a certain light source but still be affected by others? I want to create an effect on a character where their skin and clothing are effected by two different light sources. The clothing should only reflect a bright bounce light, but have the skin should not be affected by this light source.    In the example image I have two objects a cube, a sphere and three emission  lights . I want the two white lights to hit both objects, and I need the purple light to hit and reflect off of the sphere, but ignore the cube entirely (no reflections).  Someone suggested to composite the layers together, it works... but this is very impractical and cumbersome because it forces the background to be transparent and it will be a pain to try and layer together a more complex scene, especially if its animated which is what I want this effect for.  I know you can have objects ignore shadows and all kinds of other things so im hoping someone knows how to get an object to ignore light with a few settings. For a simple circuit with a battery supplying a voltage $V$ to a capacitor, let us assume that the charge on the capacitor is $Q$. Now, the work done by the battery or the energy supplied is given by the relation:  $$W=QV$$  But the energy stored in the capacitor is given by:  $$U = \tfrac12 QV$$  The value of $Q$ as well as that of $V$ should be the same in both the equations.  Now my question is, where is the other half of the energy that the battery supplied? I encountered the integral $$\int_0^1 \frac{\log \left(1-x^2\right) \sin ^{-1}(x)^2}{x^2} \, dx = -0.9393323982...$$ while researching the evaluation of harmonic sums. Mathematica 11 is not able to evaluate this integral, and is not able to evaluate the underlying indefinite integral.  I considered using the Maclaurin series for the expression $\sin ^{-1}(x)^2$ to evaluate this integral. Using this Maclaurin series, it is easily seen that the problem of evaluating the above integral is equivalent to the problem of evaluating the series $$\sum _{n=1}^{\infty } \frac{2^{2 n-1} H_{n-\frac{1}{2}}}{(1-2 n) n^2 \binom{2 n}{n}}=-0.9393323982...$$ which Mathematica 11 is not able to evaluate directly.  I also considered using the Maclaurin series for the expression $\log \left(1-x^2\right)$ to evaluate the above integral. Using this Macluarin series, it is easily seen that this integral is equal to $$\frac{1}{4} \left(16 \pi  C-\pi ^3-\pi ^2 \log (4)\right)+\sum _{n=1}^{\infty } \frac{\, _3F_2\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},1;\frac{3}{2},n+1;1\right)}{n^2-2 n^3}=-0.939332...,$$ but Mathematica is unable to evaluate the above infinite series.  What is a closed-form evaluation of $\int_0^1 \frac{\log \left(1-x^2\right) \sin ^{-1}(x)^2}{x^2} \, dx$? What techniques can be applied to evaluate this definite integral? Can anybody explain the necessity of the RC network shown in the figure. I found this in circuit for a logic power supply using Fly-Back converter? I've seen plots of test/training error suddenly dropping at certain epoch(s) a few times during the neural network training, and I wonder what causes these performance jumps:    This image is taken from Kaiming He's Github, but similar plots show up in many papers. Selenium 2: Open link in new tab and close tabs How to move a window if titlebar is overlapped by Ubuntu menu Somehow the title-bar of chrome was overlapped by Ubuntu menu-bar like attached image.  In this case how to move this chrome window? What temperature can you attain with a solar furnace? I'm making all my diagrams in SVG format using Inkscape and then I export them to some other format (e.g. PDF, EPS or PNG). I wrote a short script that does this for me automatically, but I'd like to avoid this step, if possible --- sometimes the conversion from SVG converts the text labels into vectors, and that's annoying. Hence the question:  Is there a way to include SVG diagrams directly without conversion to an intermediate format?  Package suggestions, or instructions for specific LaTeX distribution are welcome. Tips and personal experience on which tools you have found to be working reliably would be also appreciated. Start codon AUG also codes for methionine and without start codon translation does not happen. And even the ambiguous codon GUG codes for methionine when it is first. So does this mean that all proteins start with methionine as the first amino acid. What are the integer solutions to $a^{b^2} = b^a$ with $a, b \ge 2$ I saw this in quora.  What are all the integer solutions to $a^{b^2} = b^a$ with $a, b \ge 2$?  Solutions I have found so far:  $a = 2^4 = 16, b = 2, a^{b^2}  = 2^{4\cdot 4} =2^{16}, b^a = 2^{16} $.  $a = 3^3, b = 3, a^{b^2} = 3^{3\cdot 9} =3^{27}, b^a = 3^{3^3} =3^{27} $.  In the general case, $a$ and $b$ have the same set of prime divisors, so let $a =\prod_P p_i^{a_i}$, $b =\prod_P p_i^{b_i} $ with each $a_i \ge 1, b_i \ge 1$.  $b^a =b^{\prod p_i^{a_i}} =(\prod p_j^{b_j})^{\prod p_i^{a_i}} =\prod p_j^{b_j\prod p_i^{a_i}} $  $a^{b^2} =a^{\prod p_i^{2b_i}} =(\prod p_j^{a_j})^{\prod p_i^{2b_i}} =\prod p_j^{a_j\prod p_i^{2b_i}} $  Therefore, for each $p_j$, $b_j\prod p_i^{a_i} =a_j\prod p_i^{2b_i} $.  I haven't gotten any further than this.  I conjecture that there are no other solutions. What's the rationale for requiring that a field be a $\boldsymbol{non}$-$\boldsymbol{trivial}$ ring? The title pretty much says it all.  Of course, one answer (IMO unsatisfactory) to such questions goes something like "a definition is a definition, period."  In my experience, mathematical definitions are rarely completely arbitrary.  Therefore I figure there must be a good reason for insisting that a field be a non-trivial ring (among other things), but it's not obvious to me.  I realize that a trivial ring would make for a very boring field, but it is also a rather boring ring, and yet it is not disallowed as such.  EDIT: I found a hint of a rationale in the statement that "the zero ring ... does not behave like a finite field," but I could not find in the  for this assertion exactly how the zero ring fails to behave like a finite field.