Can I upgrade my attributes for my character later in game in Pillars of Eternity?
Is it possible to raise stats?
In an exam paper, there was a picture of an air stewardess in the aeroplane serving passengers. One of my pupils wrote the following:      The air stewardess works on an aeroplane.    Shouldn't it be the air stewardess works in an aeroplane? How many integer solutions does $xy+9(x+y)=2006$ have? Here $x$ and $y$ are both integers.  My trying:        I have tried to solve this problem. But I have no idea to solve this. Please help Forced to Quit PhD although the hard and proved work Function is Continuous When Restricted to Closed Sets Which Cover the Space Suppose that $\{A_i\}$ is a finite collection of closed sets in $X$ such that $X = \bigcup A_i$, and $f : X \to Y$ restricted to each $A_i$ is continuous. Then $f$ is continuous.   Okay. The base case ($n=2$) is just the pasting lemma. I am having a little trouble with the inductive case, specifically with what the hypothesis is and how to deal with continuity with respect to subspaces. I believe the inductive hypothesis is to assume that any function over a topological space that is the union of $n-1$ closed sets such that the function restricted to each of these $n-1$ closed set is continuous must be continuous over the whole space. Then I assume I have a topological space $X = \bigcup_{i=1}^n A_i$, where each $A_i$ is closed, and a function $f : X \to Y$ such that $f|_{A_i}$ is continuous for each $i$. Thus $X = \bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} A_i \cup A_n$, where $C = \bigcup_{i=1}^{n-1} A_i$ is closed since it is a finite union of closed sets. If I can show $f|_C$ is continuous, then I simply apply the pasting lemma to finish the problem. Give $C$ the subspace topology, and notice that each $A_i$ is closed in $C$. Thus we have a topological space $C$ that is the union of $n-1$ closed. But do I still have continuity $f$ restricted to $A_i$ since I am no longer considering them subspaces of $X$ but of $C$? When one says $f|_{A_i}$ is continuous, is one saying that $f$ is continuous when restricted to $A_i$ and $A_i$ is given the subspace topology?  EDIT:  I think I figured out the lemma I need. Claim: Let $A$ and $C$ be subspaces of $X$ such that $A \subseteq C$. Topologize $C$ with subspace topology with respect to $X$. Then the subspace topology on $A$ as a subspace of $X$ (call it $\tau_X$) is the same as the subspace topology of $A$ as a subspace of $C$ (call it $\tau_C$).   Proof: Let $U$ be open in $X$. Then $A \cap U$ is some open set in $A$ as a subspace of $X$. Since $C$ is a subspace of $X$, $C \cap U$ is open in $C$ as a subspace of $X$. Then $A \cap (C \cap U) = (A \cap C) \cap U = A \cap U$ is open in $A$ as a subspace of $C$, thereby proving $\tau_X \subseteq \tau_C$. Now let $O$ be some open set in $C$ as a subspace of $X$. Then $A \cap O$ is some open subset of $A$ as a subspace of $C$. But $O = C \cap U$ for some open set in $X$. Therefore $A \cap O = A \cap (C \cap U)= A \cap U$, which is also open in $A$ as a subspace of $X$. Hence $\tau_C \subseteq \tau_X$  Kind of obvious. But it was hard to spot the need for this lemma when I was considering subspace of subspaces and continuous functions, etc. Am I right in thinking this is the lemma I need? Show that any prime ideal from such a ring is maximal. Which shells don't support dollar-parenthesis expansion, and demand backticks? Entries I can safely exclude doing backups I want to calculate the derivative of $|x|^\alpha$ with respect to $x$, where $1&lt;\alpha&lt;2$.  $\frac{d|x|^\alpha}{dx}=\alpha|x|^{\alpha-1}\mathrm{sign}(x)$  Is it correct?  And is it true that  $\lim_{x \to 0} \alpha|x|^\alpha\mathrm{sign}(x)=0$?  What with the following derivative $|x|^\alpha\rm{sign}(x)$. I would be grateful for any hints. Let $f$ and $g$ be entire functions and $g(z)\neq 0$ for all $z\in \mathbb{C}$. If $|f(z)|\le |g(z)|$, can we say $f$ is constant?  Liouville theorem says that an entire bounded function is constant, but g is not given bounded here. So I think it should be false. What else can we say about $f$? I want to resolve merge conflicts in my Git repository. How to do that ? Why are objects at rest in motion through spacetime at the speed of light? I had recently faced a problem:     Solve the Diophantine Equation $x^2 - y! = 2001$.   Solving it was quite easy. You show how $\forall y \ge 6$, $9|y!$ and since $3$ divides the RHS, it must divide the LHS and if $3|x^2 \implies 9|x^2$ and so the LHS is divisible by $9$ and the RHS is not. Contradiction. Hence, the only solution is $(45, 4)$.  That made me wonder, how we can solve the Diophantine Equation $x^2 - y! = 2016$. We cannot apply the same logic here. $2016$ is a multiple of $9$ and it is clear that $3|x$ and $9 \nmid x$. How do I proceed from here? Show that $\phi(n)=\frac{n}{2}$ if and only if $n=2^k$ for some positive integer k. I think I have it figured and would like to see if I am on the right track. Thank you. Do strong and weak interactions have classical force fields as their limits? Electromagnetic interaction has classical electromagnetism as its classical limit. Is it possible to similarly describe strong and weak interactions classically? How to reverse PCA and reconstruct original variables from several principal components? Principal component analysis (PCA) can be used for dimensionality reduction. After such dimensionality reduction is performed, how can one approximately reconstruct the original variables/features from a small number of principal components?  Alternatively, how can one remove or discard several principal components from the data?  In other words, how to reverse PCA?    Given that PCA is closely related to singular value decomposition (SVD), the same question can be asked as follows: how to reverse SVD? IS or ARE? "The only thing that I want you to hit right now IS/ARE the books" When traveling to a country with a different currency, how should you take your money? Recently my wife and I traveled to Italy and before we left we got about 85% of our money in travelers checks and the other 15% we carried on in cash. When we arrived there, no one would take our travelers checks and many places did not accept credit cards. Eventually, we found some currency exchange places that would take the travelers checks and give us Euro's, but at a 7-15% fee, which was not really a very fun surprise.   While I was under the impression that it is safer to use travelers checks, it seems that they were not really accepted (the usual explanation being fraud). So the question is, is it best to just exchange your currency at home and carry all of it with you when you travel or are there other alternatives to carrying cash that are safer and cost effective? A problem of Schwarz-Pick theorem in complex analysis Set $f \in H(B(0,1)),f(B(0,1)) \subset B(0,1)$，prove that $$|f(z)-\frac{f(0)(1-|z|^2)}{1-|f(0)|^2||z|^2}| \le \frac{|z|(1-|f(0)|^2)}{1-|z|^2|f(0)|^2}$$  I think this problem is supposed to be proved by Schwarz-Pick theorem, I tried hard but failed to build a function to prove it. I even doubted that this problem is wrong, so I want to whether this problem can be proved or be falsified, and how.  Any help would be appreciated. So, for fun, I am taking some of the data of calls from the call center I work at and trying to do some hypothesis testing on them, specifically the number of calls received in a week, and using a Poisson distribution to fit it. Due to the subject matter of my job, there are two types of weeks, let's call one of them on-weeks where I hypothesize there are more calls, and off-weeks where I hypothesize there are fewer.  I have a theory that the $\lambda$ from on-weeks (let's call it $\lambda_1$) is larger than that of the one from off-weeks (let's call it $\lambda_2$)  So the hypothesis I want to test is $H_0: \lambda_1 &gt; \lambda_2, H_1: \lambda_1 \leq \lambda_2 $  I know how to test for one parameter (say  $H_0: \lambda_1 &gt; 1, H_1: \lambda_1 \leq 1 $) but not so sure how to go about doing 2 given a data set. Let's say I take two week's worth of data from each one $X_1 = 2$ and $X_2 = 3$ for the off-week and $Y_1 = 2$ and $Y_2=6$ for the on-week. Can someone help walk me though this simpler version such that I can apply it to a larger data set? Any help is appreciated, thank you. If $f \in L_p \cap L_q$, $1 \leq p < r < q < \infty$ then $f \in L_r$. If $f \in L_p \cap L_q$ and $1 \leq p &lt; r &lt; q &lt; \infty$ then $f \in L_r$.   Proof: Let $E = \{ x \in X: \left\lvert f \right\rvert \leq 1 \}$. Then, $$\int \left\lvert f \right\rvert^r \mathrm{d}\mu = \int_E \left\lvert f \right\rvert^r \mathrm{d}\mu+\int_{E^C} \left\lvert f \right\rvert^r \mathrm{d}\mu \leq \int_E \left\lvert f \right\rvert^p \mathrm{d}\mu+\int_{E^C} \left\lvert f \right\rvert^q \mathrm{d}\mu$$ $$\leq \int \left\lvert f \right\rvert^p \mathrm{d}\mu+\int \left\lvert f \right\rvert^q \mathrm{d}\mu &lt; \infty.$$ Thus, $f \in L_r$.  I just want to make sure I am somehow not missing anything. Thanks