Accessing spring model attributes using static final string name
How to reference constants in EL?
I am trying to solve:  $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{x\sin{x}}{x^2 + a^2}dx$$  and show that it equals $\pi e^{-a}$ for all $a &gt; 0$.  I translate it to its complex equivalent:  $$lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \int_{-R}^{R}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz = \int_{C}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz - \int_{\gamma}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz$$  where C is a half circle with radius R, above the real axis, and $\gamma$ is only the curved (top part) of the half circle.  I've shown that $$\int_{\gamma}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz$$ tends to 0 as $R \rightarrow \infty$.  So now:  $$lim_{R \rightarrow \infty} \int_{-R}^{R}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz = \int_{C}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz$$  By residue theorem,   $$\int_{C}\frac{z\sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}dz = 2\pi i \cdot res_{ai}f$$  as $ai$ is the pole of $f$ that lies above the real axis.  $$2\pi i \cdot res_{ai}f = 2\pi i \cdot lim_{z \rightarrow ai} (z-ai)\frac{z sin{z}}{z^2 + a^2}$$  By L'Hospital's rule, this is equivalent to:  $$2\pi i \cdot lim_{z \rightarrow ai} (z-ai)\frac{z^2\cos{z} + 2z\sin{z} - zai\cos{z} - ai\sin{z}}{2z} = 2\pi i \cdot \frac{\sin{ai}}{2} = \pi i \sin{ai}$$  But how is $\pi i \sin{ai}$ equivalent to $\pi e^{-a}$? Did I make a mistake? I know what you're thinking: "of course it has, for example, it can be used to tell you how many times you can go around a circle". But that isn't really true, now is it? You'd be dead or the world would go under long before an infinite amount of loops had been reached.  Are there any practical applications for the concept of infinity? Is it a useful concept in maths at all?  I know that Donald E. Knuth has argued that for all practical purposes, a very, very large number has the same effect as infinity, in his book "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" (can't remember the exact quote, nor find it online, unfortunately).  Examples are appreciated. bash: warning: shell level (1000) too high, resetting to 1 This question led to a new package:      I'm giving my students an old exam and barely remembered to change the date at the top. A colleague and I joked about how long we could reuse the same exam, and it made me wonder if I could use LaTeX to create an exam that looked like it was written in 1963 on a typewriter.  Here's what I'd like to see:   Typewriter font even in math mode. (Several ways to accomplish this; is there a "best" way?) Slight inconsistencies in the printing of each letter. I attempt this below adapting code taken from . Each word has a random vertical shift, though I'd like to see it reduced to each letter having its own vertical shift. Other typewriter-like irregularities would be great. It would be great if math-mode delimeters \left(, \right}, etc., can be created in a piece-meal fashion as they did in days of old. Fraction bars, tops of square-root symbols -- any horizontal line, really -- is made up of a series of en-dashes that don't quite match up.   Here is what I've come up with so far:  \documentclass[10pt]{article}% This is a document class providing more font size options \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{ifthen} \usepackage[textwidth=7.5in,textheight=9.5in]{geometry} \pagestyle{empty}  % thanks to Bruno Le Floch: https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/9331/4012 % and in his comments to https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/29458/4012 \usepackage[first=-1,last=1]{lcg}% you can play around with these values \makeatletter \newcommand{\globalrand}{\rand\global\cr@nd\cr@nd} \makeatother  \newcommand{\randomvshift}[1]{\globalrand\raisebox{\value{rand}pt}{#1}}  %%% thanks to Martin Scharrer: https://tex.stackexchange.com/q/11598/4012 \makeatletter \def\typewriter#1{%     \@typewriter#1 \@empty } \def\@typewriter#1 #2{%    \randomvshift{#1}\space    \ifx #2\@empty\else     \expandafter\@typewriter    \fi    #2% } \makeatother \begin{document}\tt  \typewriter{Math 101 Fall 1963}  \begin{enumerate} \item   \typewriter{$\frac{\texttt{d}}{\texttt{dx}}\texttt{(x)}^2$}  \item \typewriter{State the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.}  \end{enumerate}  \end{document} How would you represent "religion" in an icon, neutrally? Why do reputation drops not highlight the Achievements icon? The "Recent achievements" icon (looks like a bar graph in the top bar for signed in users) doesn't highlight when one only has recent reputation losses.  I'd like it to highlight whenever my reputation changes, positive or negative - in fact I'd suggest it's far more important for me to review posts that get a downvote than those that got an upvote.  Is there a reason negative reputation events don't cause it to highlight? I recently renewed my passport. I also have an expired passport which has my Canada visa (visitor's) valid for another three years. I have already used my Canadian visa which is multiple entry. I am planning to visit Canada this summer.  Since my valid Canadian visa is in my old/expired passport, do I need to renew/transfer my Canada visa or can I simply travel with valid visa in old passport? How does faster than light travel violate causality? Let's say I have two planets that are one hundred thousand lightyears away from each other. I and my immortal friend on the other planet want to communicate, with a strong laser and a tachyon communication device.  I record a message on the tachyon communication device and release the message at exactly the same time as I activate the laser, both of which are directed to the other planet which is one hundred thousand lightyears away. Say it is the year 0 for both of us at the time I did this.  If tachyons existed, then the message would arrive to my friend before the photons in the laser. It would arrive, say, a thousand years earlier. From my vantage point, that message will arrive to her at year 99,999; the same would be true for my friend's vantage point. However, she will only see the laser at year 100,000.  So since she got the message at year 99,999, she immediately sends me a reply back going through the same procedure as I did. She records a message and releases it at the same time as the laser. The tachyons will arrive 1,000 years earlier than the laser, so for me, I will receive the message at year 199,998. I will receive the laser, however, at year 199,999.  It seems to me that communication this way does not violate causality. I will still have received the message after I had sent it.   If tachyons truly violated causality, though, I realize it should arrive at year -1 for her, and so she can reply to me at year -2, which would mess me up by year 0 as I will ask her how she knew I was planning on sending her a message before I sent it. I could send her a different message, which she would end up receiving at year -1, and will end up confusing her as she would have received one message asking her out, and the other asking her how did she know I was asking her out. She then decides I am crazy and sends me a message at year -2 that she does not want to date me, and so she will have both turned me down and entertained me before I have even asked her out.  On the other hand, let's go back to year 0 and add a third device to our list: an Alcubierre drive. After I send out the message and the laser, I get impatient and do not feel like waiting 99,999 years, so I get on my Alcubierre drive spaceship and arrive on her planet at the same year 0. My friend is not in her office, so I leave a note to her also immortal secretary saying I dropped by and that she should expect a message for her in year 99,999.  I then get back on my Alcubierre drive and land back on my planet, still on year 0. Meanwhile, the tachyons and photons I sent out are still racing to arrive to her. By year 99,999, she receives the message just as I Alcubierre drive back to her, and I pick her up for dinner.  But the point of my question is, it seems to me that just going faster than light, if that alone was what you had, would not violate causality. It must be something else. I understand time dilation and that things with mass cannot travel at the speed of light, but using the Alcubierre drive, hypothetically speaking, I was still able to outpace the photons while also having mass. It still did not produce causality problems. Alcubierre drives are also valid solutions to GR.  It seems circular to me to say that what makes traveling faster than light violate causality is because it violates causality (if faster than light communication was divorced from causality problems, then the causality problem would cause itself -- thereby violating causality and, hence, we would scrap it and conclude that there is no causality problem after all).  What is it that I am missing? If someone could help me out, that would be excellent. I've been itching to ask my friend out for a few millenia now. :) How do I add a kernel boot parameter? I need to add the boot parameter foo=bar to my kernel. How can I do this once for testing, and permanently if testing was a success? app crash in the dealloc What 70s (60s?) TV show / TV movie had a generation ship whose inhabitants did not know they were on a spaceship? I have the vaguest memory of a TV show (maybe a BBC import?) in which the protagonists were moving through the sections of a massive generation ship whose inhabitants had forgotten that they were on a spaceship... I know there was an RPG with the same plot (which, after all, is a pretty great blank slate) but I definitely feel I saw this on a static-filled 13" B&amp;W TV back in the day... Are there concerns with doing a generalized additive model with a smoothing term of multiple variables? In R, usually one performs a generalized additive model like so:  library(mgcv) x &lt;- gam(depvar ~ s(indvar1) + s(indvar2) + parametricvar)   Say I want to explore the non-parametric interaction of indvar1 and indvar2.  Is the following kosher?  x &lt;- gam(depvar ~ s(indvar,indvar2) + parametricvar) Why does this excerpt say that unbiased estimation of standard deviation usually isn't relevant? I write financial applications where I constantly battle the decision to use a double vs using a decimal.  All of my math works on numbers with no more than 5 decimal places and are not larger than ~100,000. I have a feeling that all of these can be represented as doubles anyways without rounding error, but have never been sure.  I would go ahead and make the switch from decimals to doubles for the obvious speed advantage, except that at the end of the day, I still use the ToString method to transmit prices to exchanges, and need to make sure it always outputs the number I expect. (89.99 instead of 89.99000000001)  Questions:   Is the speed advantage really as large as naive tests suggest? (~100 times) Is there a way to guarantee the output from ToString to be what I want? Is this assured by the fact that my number is always representable?   UPDATE: I have to process ~ 10 billion price updates before my app can run, and I have implemented with decimal right now for the obvious protective reasons, but it takes ~3 hours just to turn on, doubles would dramatically reduce my turn on time. Is there a safe way to do it with doubles? What happens when I terminate a process and the socket send buffer is not empty? In Windows (and probably in other operating systems), if a process has a TCP connection with another process on another machine, and then I terminate the process, an RST packet will be sent to the other machine to indicate the end of the connection.  Now imagine that when the process is terminated, there were still some data left in the send buffer. What will happen in this case, will these remaining data be sent to the other machine followed by an RST packet, or will these remaining data be ignored and only an RST packet is sent? Produce two distinct topologies of R such that the first is strictly finer than the second but the two are homeomorphic to each other. Need to prove that they are homeomorphic to each other.  So if T_1 and T_2 are topologies on set X with T_1 contained in T_2, every element of T_1 will be in T_2 and T_2 is the "finer" (stronger and larger) topology. So to them be homeomorphic is T_1 going to have to be a hole in T_2? How to prove $\bar{m}$ is a zero divisor in $\mathbb{Z}_n$ if and only if $m,n$ are not coprime LaTeX seems to be having problems handling nested optional arguments. I've included a minimal code example that generates the error:  \documentclass[12pt,oneside]{book} \begin{document}  \newcommand{\termbad}[2][]{#2#1} \newcommand{\termgood}[2][]{#2#1}  \newcommand{\up}[1]{#1} \newcommand{\dd}[1][]{#1}  \termgood{\up{Tart}}{Pop} \termbad[\up{Tart}]{Pop}      \termgood{\dd[Tart]}{Pop} \termbad[{\dd[Tart]}]{Pop} %\termbad[\dd[Tart]]{Pop}   \end{document}   If you run this code, it works. If you remove the % in the second to last line, it fails with:  Runaway argument?  Tart{Pop} \par \par \end {document}  !File ended while scanning use of \dd.   After further tinkering, I have discovered the problem: LaTeX is reading the ] for the inner optional argument as the end of the outer optional argument and then passing a malformed argument in. So it is passing in \dd[Tart as the optional argument to \termbad instead of \dd[Tart].  This still feels like a bug to me. Nesting braces in arguments works, brackets should as well. The following are workarounds:   Enclose the inner optional argument in braces (as in the line before %). Redefine your inner function to require its argument instead of using optional arguments. Redefine your outer function to require its argument instead of using optional arguments.   Any one of the three works around the issue.  (Reposted here; question was originally posted to stackexchange and then closed instead of being migrated.) Find $x$ such that $(x^2 + 4x + 3)^x + (2x + 4)^x = (x^2 + 4x + 5)^x$ Syntax error on print with Python 3