If $\sum a_n$ converges then $\sum a_n^{1-1/n}$ converges.
An interesting exercise about converging positive series, involving $\sum_{n\geq 1}a_n^{\frac{n-1}{n}}$
Changing local IP address with networksetup command on OSX? My computer routinely receives connection from another host in the local network. However, the router changes its ip address quite frequently, and maybe netsh's equivalent, networksetup, can help? One Time Pad Key Distribution For multiple OTP keys, why not do this:  Key = Hash[(EC)DH Shared Secret + Counter]  The counter will increase per message, and the output of the hash will be random for each new unique input into it. What are the problems or weaknesses with this design??  EDIT: For clarification: both parties will have the shared secret from an ECDH exchange, random numbers from Pythons os.urandom for generating the ECC key On the uniqueness of the Riemann-Christoffel tensor According to Section 6.2, Gravitation and Cosmology by Weinberg, the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is the only tensor that can be constructed out of the second (or lower) order derivatives of the metric tensor and is linear in the second order derivatives. The reasoning behind the same goes like this:   In a class of frames where $\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu} =0$, the transformation rule for $\dfrac{\partial \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}}{\partial x^{\kappa}}$ involves an inhomogeneous term which is symmetric in $\mu$, $\nu$, and $\kappa$. Thus, if one is to construct a tensor which is a linear combination of the first order derivatives of the Christoffel symbol then the only way to do so is by eliminating the inhomogeneous part of the transformation and this could be done only by making the combination explicitly antisymmetric in $\mu$ and $\kappa$. Since in these frames, $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\rho}$ $ = \dfrac{\partial \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}}{\partial x^{\rho}} -  \dfrac{\partial \Gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\rho}}{\partial x^{\kappa}} $, $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\rho}$ is the only tensor that can be formulated using the second (or lower) order derivatives of the metric tensor and is linear in the second order derivatives.  I think the presented argument can only suffice to prove that $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\rho}$ is the only tensor that can be formulated from the first derivatives of the Christoffel symbol and is linear in them. I can't figure out why this suffices to assert that $R^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu\rho}$  is the only tensor that can be constructed out of the second (or lower) order derivatives of the metric tensor and is linear in the second order derivatives.  Edit: As the metric is covariantly constant, $\dfrac{\partial g_{{\mu}{\nu}}}{\partial x^{\rho}} = \Gamma^{\kappa}_{{\mu}{\rho}}g_{{\kappa}{\nu}}+\Gamma^{\kappa}_{{\nu}{\rho}}g_{{\kappa}{\mu}}$.  Therefore,   $\dfrac{\partial^2 g_{{\mu}{\nu}}}{\partial x^{\xi}\partial x^{\rho}} = \bigg(\dfrac{\partial \Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\mu}{\rho}}}{\partial x^{\xi}} + \Gamma^{\sigma_1}_{{\mu}{\rho}}\Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\sigma_1}{\xi}}\bigg)g_{{\sigma}{\nu}}+\bigg(\dfrac{\partial \Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\nu}{\rho}}}{\partial x^{\xi}} + \Gamma^{\sigma_1}_{{\nu}{\rho}}\Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\sigma_1}{\xi}}\bigg)g_{{\sigma}{\mu}} + \bigg(\Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\mu}{\rho}}\Gamma^{\sigma_1}_{{\nu}{\xi}}+\Gamma^{\sigma}_{{\nu}{\rho}}\Gamma^{\sigma_1}_{{\mu}{\xi}}\bigg)g_{{\sigma}{\sigma_1}} $  Now, if I want to show that the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is the only (non-trivial and independent) tensor that can be formulated out of the linear combinations of the second order derivatives of the metric tensor then I can equivalently show that the above expansion can be expressed linearly in terms of the Riemann-Christoffel tensor. But I am stuck over how to do it. Also, I am a little bit unclear as to what a linear combination means in this context. The coefficient of the second order term can be only a scalar constant or can it be the metric or can it be the metric that is getting summed over any of the indices as well? AMD GPU Material in "material preview mode" and "rendered mode", is entirely gray as background. Only outline is displayed Electric Flux - What is the point? Electric flux is a defined quantity that is proportional to the no. of field lines passing through a given area element for a given electric field. It is not proportional to the relative density of field lines, which would supply information regarding the strength of the field at that point. Electric flux, it seems to me, does not supply us with any practical information. It seems to me that electric flux is a quantity defined and modeled specifically for Gauss' law, to introduce some kind of mathematical elegance to it and to introduce an additional visual aspect to the concept of electric fields. Perhaps this is why for symmetrical situations especially, Gauss' Law can be used to easily determine the electric field due to the given charge distribution. Am I wrong here? Is there a physical significance to electric flux that I do not understand? How do I edit my profile? This is probably a noob question, but I forgot how to edit my profile.   Can anyone help me? There is no visible button for me. Fields - Proof that every multiple of zero equals zero This is one of my first proofs about fields. Please feed back and criticise in every way (including style and details).  Let $(F, +, \cdot)$ be a field. Non-trivially, $\textit{associativity}$ implies that any parentheses are meaningless. Therefore, we will not use parentheses. Therefore, we will not use $\textit{associativity}$ explicitly.  By $\textit{identity element}$, $F \ne \emptyset$. Now, let $a \in F$. It remains to prove that $0a = 0$. \begin{equation*} \begin{split} 0a &amp;=  0a +  0      &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{identity element }(+    ) \\    &amp;=  0a +  a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{inverse element  }(+    ) \\    &amp;=  0a + 1a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{identity element }(\cdot) \\    &amp;= (0 + 1)a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{distributivity   }        \\    &amp;= (1 + 0)a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{commutativity    }(+    ) \\    &amp;=      1 a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{identity element }(+    ) \\    &amp;=        a + -a &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{identity element }(\cdot) \\    &amp;=  0            &amp;&amp; \quad \text{by }\textit{inverse element  }(+    ) \end{split} \end{equation*} QED  PS: Is "Let $(F, +, \cdot)$ be a field." ok? Besides, I would not want to call $F$ a field, because $F$ is just a set. Also, what do you think about using adverbs like "Now"? How would you have said the associativity-thing? How do I get help for "echo" or other bash commands? man echo works. but out of curiosity, does echo have something similar to a --help flag/parameter? Windows 10 default programs keep changing Since the fall update last month, Windows 10 automatically keeps changing the default apps for certain types (mostly browser,pdf,mp3,jpg). I have tried changing them back from the Settings app as well as the Control Panel.  I have observed that this happens mostly while unzipping files using WinZip. Windows changes the default programs back to Microsoft recommended programs such as Edge, Photos, Groove etc.  Is there a way to restrict this from happening? Has anybody else encountered a similar situation? I couldn't find similar question anywhere so I'm asking this here. What are the rations Rey eats? In The Force Awakens, we see Rey pouring some flour-like polystarch rations into water so that the flour amazingly transforms into something that looks like bread. What are these rations? Is there any documentation of the fictional chemistry and biology that makes the starch rations behave as they do? When entering the US on an international flight, and then on to a connecting domestic flight, what is the exact order of the process that will take place? In other words, what happens first, second, third, etc.? On Mac, are there keyboard shortcuts to create a new Space? Or at least any way to automate this process with keyboard shortcuts? I want to not have to use the mouse to create Spaces. I want to use the keyboard for that. Currently i am using RF toolbox on MATLAB for a binary classification Problem  Data Set: 50000 samples  and more than 250 features  So what should be the number of trees and randomly selected feature on each split to grow the trees? can any other parameter greatly affect the results? Why is integration so much harder than differentiation? Is it possible to make an underfull tabulary spread out? With this MWE  \documentclass{article} \usepackage{tabulary}  \begin{document}  \hrule  \begin{center}   \begin{tabulary}{\textwidth}{|L|L|L|}     foo&amp;bar&amp;baz   \end{tabulary} \end{center}  \hrule  \end{document}   I get a table which is narrower than the page:   But I'd like the table to be spread out to \textwidth like tabularx would do. Is this possible?  Or is there an alternative approach? For integers $a$ and $b$, $ab=\text{lcm}(a,b)\cdot\text{hcf}(a,b)$ I was reading a text book and came across the following:  Important Results (This comes immediately after LCM:) If 2 [integers] $a$ and $b$ are given, and their $LCM$ and $HCF$ are $L$ and $H$ respectively, then $L \times H = a \times b$  Can some please help me understand why the above result is true? Thanks in advance. Can anyone please help and tell me if this sentence is correct?  &quot;A significant amount of zombies were detected in your city.&quot;  In my opinion it should be &quot;A significant amount of zombies was detected in your city.&quot; because &quot;amount&quot; should be in agreement with &quot;was&quot; even though amount usually refers to something plural. Are both (was and were) acceptable in this case? Edit1: Yes, &quot;number&quot; would be the correct one in this case. So allow me to ask one more thing.  &quot;A significant amount of purchases were detected...&quot;  Does the use of &quot;number&quot; apply in this case also? As purchase is not exactly a thing/person. And if no, is it correct to say &quot;A significant amount of purchases were detected...&quot;? Edit2: So, please tell me what is the correct phrasing?  &quot;A significant amount of purchases were detected...&quot; &quot;A significant amount of purchases was detected...&quot;  Or, since purchases are countable, is the use of &quot;number&quot; instead of &quot;amount&quot; correct here, as in:  &quot;A significant number of purchases were detected...&quot; &quot;A significant number of purchases was detected...&quot;  Or would amount be correct since a purchase involves money and it refers to the amount of money? Would greatly appreciate an answer, and if possible a detailed explanation. :  Not ten minutes ago, I received this error, twice:  And also an &quot;Oops, something bad happened&quot; error.  I'm also getting question posting errors.  Can we fix this, please? Interpretation of mean absolute scaled error (MASE) Truncated trivariate normal - conditional expectation