How can I use Gödel numbers to make a proof?
Can I use Gödel numbers to make a proof?
How can I understand a Vortex Tube and its efficiency? A  takes a pressurized input stream, most typically of a gas, and creates two output streams with a temperature differential. .  Both linked sources are scarce with information about how and why this works. Now, I have two questions:   Why does it work, specifically why should the situation in the vortex lead to a transfer of thermal energy from the inner stream to the outer one? How efficient can it be?  How do you define the efficiency of a device that may be closer to Maxwell's Demon than to a heat pump? My feeling is that any analysis should not only take into account the sum of input energy (thermal and mechanical energy instream) and sum output (thermal energies and pressures of both gas streams), but also the Temperature differential that is created - since that contains an ability to create work.* If course it's pointless to create heat from high grade 8mech.) energy to transform it back to mech. energy - but it gives an idea on the worth of the output. How to run applications as root? I am having some strange issue with Kate and Kwrite. When I click on Open File, it crashes with segmentation fault.   I am a complete newbie to Linux, and I think the issue is that I am not running the application as root.   How do I run applications as root in Ubuntu? Is it bad practice to do this? What is the purpose of the whole root thing, where even though we need to use root so frequently, it is not utilized as default? It is well-known that empty text files have zero bytes:    However, each of them contains , which according to my research, is stored in , and do use space.   Given this, it seems logical to me that it is possible to fill a disk by purely creating empty text files. Is this correct? If so, how many empty text files would I need to fill in a disk of, say, 1GB?    To do some checks, I run df -i but this apparently shows the % of inodes being used(?) rather than how much they weigh.  Filesystem             Inodes  IUsed    IFree IUse% Mounted on udev                   947470    556   946914    1% /dev tmpfs                  952593    805   951788    1% /run /dev/sda2            28786688 667980 28118708    3% / tmpfs                  952593     25   952568    1% /dev/shm tmpfs                  952593      5   952588    1% /run/lock tmpfs                  952593     16   952577    1% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/sda1                   0      0        0     - /boot/efi tmpfs                  952593     25   952568    1% /run/user/1000 /home/lucho/.Private 28786688 667980 28118708    3% /home/lucho My goal is to produce a graph showing the linkages (and lack there of) between several fields that share a common subproblem by showing who cites whom.  There are many databases that show citations between papers: , , and Google Scholar.  However none allows me to download even part of their database.  Is there some database I have overlooked?  Has someone written a scrapper for one of these websites?    For reference, the fields I'm considering are Mechanics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Signal Processing, Geophysics, and several others. 18.04.01 Not available for server Best way to migrate a huge SQL Server database with low downtime over network Problem definition  Our database server needs to be transferred to an other datacenter. It runs on Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Enterprise (64-bit) and contains two databases of about 2TB and 1TB.  Having little to no downtime for this would be ideal.  Workload  Those databases are used for a .NET website and are constantly getting updated.   Having it not available over the weekend would be acceptable though. The currently in use DB would remain the only one in use until the switch over to the new one.  That switch would ideally be made just by changing DNS entries to point to the new DB server while making sure the DB is not being updated.  Also, time taken by this operation does not really matter as long as the switch from one server to the other (downtime) is kept low.  Approaches considered   Backup and restore  This has been done in the past but involved a high downtime even though it was done through an internal network, so more efficiently than through Internet Log shipping  As far as I understand, this approach would minimize downtime by configuring a master/slave and transferring  an exact copy of the master DB to its slave being read only. As mentioned above, no access to the slave would be necessary and we just need a way to have a replica of the master DB without data corruption.   It also seems to be quite efficient in terms of resources utilization and wouldn't impact to much the master performance.   I might be wrong about this approach so feel free to correct me. Database mirroring  I'm not too aware of that approach but it seems like a valid option. No need to have real time sync and performance of the master is quite important so asynchronous would be the way to go if this approach were to be chosen. Other options?  That server runs directly on bare metal hardware so lower level solutions are unfortunately not an option. Maybe there is a better way to get this done?   Constraints  As described, those databases are quite big to the point they are hard to maintain but that's an other problem.  The versions of SQL Server will be the same (Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Enterprise 64-bit).  It will have to be transferred over network between two datacenters so most probably over Internet. Having disks sent from one site to the other for an initial sync is unfortunately not an option. Having some sort of security for the transfer would be ideal but we will do the best of this situation.  That should give a quite good overview of our needs for this task and hopefully some of you had to face that situation before. Determining a tricky limit What is the limit of   $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\log n}{n^\delta}$$  where $\delta &gt; 0$? How can I recover data from a clicking/dying external drive? Windows asks me to reformat every time I plug it into my computer, so I fired up Ubuntu via VirtualBox (selecting the external hard drive in the USB settings for VirtualBox beforehand) to see if I can access it there.  Does anyone have any suggestions for me? I have over 1TB of data on this drive and do not want to lose it. When I plug it into an electrical outlet, the light turns on, and when I plug it into my laptop, I can feel it clicking. I am trying to compile a list of the different ways to come up with the closed form for the sum in the title. So far I have the famous Gauss story, the argument by counting doubletons, and using generating functions. Is there any other (significantly) different way to discover the closed form?  To clarify, Gauss's method was to take $1+2+3+\dots+n$, write it backwards, and add it up. I am sure there is something wrong i am doing but i just want someone to point it to me.  Why can't we say that $e^{\frac {\pi i}{3}} = \left(e^{\pi i}\right)^{\frac {1}{3}} = (-1)^{\frac {1}{3}} = -1$ Why do we have to calculate it by the formula as it is (which produces different value)  Another question is why can't we say that $ (-1)^{\frac {1}{2}} = \left(\left (-1\right)^{2}\right)^{\frac {1}{4}} = 1^{\frac {1}{4}} = 1$  Again i have to say that i know this is all wrong i just want to know why it is wrong Mysql Select some random rows and plus one specific row What intuitively is "bias"? I'm struggling to grasp the concept of bias in the context of linear regression analysis.    What is the mathematical definition of bias? What exactly is biased and why/how? Illustrative example? Can I use Minecraft PC textures and worlds in Pocket Edition? Now that I've discovered that I can host a , I'd like to know if is it possible to use the textures and maps of the PC version for the pocket version.  I'm planning to visit Peru and Machu Picchu. It would be really cool to entice them for the voyage by letting them play a  in their favourite video game. Unfortunately, this God of Deceit world looks really sophisticated. I don't believe the Pocket Edition would be able to play it. I'm given a matrix A, its dimensions are n x n.  I am required to prove that an invertible matrix B exists, such that the product of the matrices BA is triangular.  Any help? How do I get permissions to edit system configuration files? I can't seem to edit and save config files in the root system (eg: /etc/dhcp/dhcpd.config); it just says "permission denied" or the save option is blocked in the text editor.  I'm pretty sure I'm a root user, but how do I make sure? If I am a root user, how do I fix this? Precise back-reference target with hyperref and backref Can Selenium interact with an existing browser session? What is the expected minimum euclidean distance between $N$ points uniformly and independently chosen on the shell(sphere) of 3-D ball of radius $R$?   Note that the expected minimum distance might be difficult to compute, so a good lower bound is also fine.   My approach  I take the approach similar to this   .   Suppose we put $N$ circles of radius $r$ uniformly on the surface of the ball. Therefore we could compute the expected minimum distance by the following expression \begin{align} E[D]=\int_0^\infty P(D&gt;t) dt. \end{align}  So, it remains to compute  $P(D&gt;t)$. Actually, since we are after a lower bound on  $E[D]$ it is enought to give a lower bound on $P(D&gt;t)$.  Let $S_i$ be the event that the pair of circles does not intersect which should be given by \begin{align} P(S_i) =  \frac{ Surf(R)-Surf(r)}{Surf(R)}= 1-\frac{  \pi r^2}{ 4\pi R^2}=1-\frac{ r^2}{ 4 R^2} \end{align}  Now the probability that euclidean minimum distance $D$ between $N$ balls is bigger than $t$ should be similar to  \begin{align} P[ D \ge t] \stackrel{?}{=}  P[ \cap S_i] \end{align} However, I think we somehow need to converte from the geodesic distance to euclidean distance but I am not very sure how to do that? From what I know, it is unknown whether $x_n=x_{n-1}^2 + 1$ has a closed form. Is there a recurrence relation which is known to have no closed form with a proof of inexistence?  Assuming a closed form is a non recursive description using the elementary operations of addition multiplication and power, or, assuming any other good definition of "closed form".  Edit  There are similar questions out there, but the answers are a little bit going around the question.   So is there one with proof or is it unknown? And if it depends on the definition of a closed form, then what are the (or some) options? How strong can a closed form definition be to still have a recursive relation that can be proved to not being able to have its form?  Update  Because it is a big question, and I don't want to open a new small one, I think a good representative small question about this subject is:  Is there a recurrence relation with a domain of the natural numbers, described by elementary functions, which has no closed form defined as:  A closed form of a recurrence relation with a domain of natural numbers is a function $f$ that can be described as a composition of a constant number of elementary functions without reccursion. i.e, $f(n) = f_1(f_2( \dots (f_k(n))) \dots) $ where $f_i$ is elementary for all $1 \leq i \leq k$   I think this definition is the most intuitive and basic.  For example, the relation $x_n = x_{n-1}+1$ has a closed form in this sense: $$f(n) = f_1(f_2(f_3(f_4(n))))$$  Where $f_1$ is division, $f_2(n)=(n,2)$, $f_3$ is multiplication and $f_4(n) = (n,n+1)$   Is there a recurrence relation which has no closed form in this sense? Looking out into the universe means looking back in time - how does that work? This is a question that has been gnawing on me for many years now. Back a long time ago, as I recall in reference to a scene in a popular science show on TV, I was asked the following.  The claim is that when you look out into the universe, you see the universe as it appeared at some past time. (This follows from the speed of light being finite, and looking at objects by observing their emitted light or other EM radiation.) The amount of time that one looks backwards is equal to the distance to the observed object in light-distance (so looking at something ten lightyears away means you are observing it as it was ten years ago).  Matter moves at a rate of speed less than the speed of light (it has to, since matter has mass, even if miniscule at the atomic level). So $v_{mass} \lt v_{EM}$ (probably significantly less, since $v_{EM} = c$).  So let's say you're looking at an object $10^{10}$ lightyears away by observing something for which $v=c$. To the observer, that object appears as it was $10^{10}$ years ago. But the Earth is much younger than $10^{10}$ years and we established that matter moves at a slower speed than EM radiation, so wouldn't the radiation that was emitted $10^{10}$ years ago long since have passed Earth's current position?  If, say, $v_{mass} = 0.5 \times c$ (a big assumption, but bear with me for a second), it would seem that the radiation emitted $10^{10}$ years ago would have passed Earth's current position $10^{10} - (0.5 \times 10^{10}) = 5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago, around the time when the solar system was still forming. Setting $v_{mass} = 0.25 \times c$ (which seems more realistic) means the radiation would have passed "us" around $7.5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago. So how could we be observing it now?  I'm not sure I'm posing this question in the best possible way (I'll admit I do find the concept somewhat confusing), and I'm sure that there's a simple explanation for it all. Just what am I missing?  I did find  which seems peripherally related but not quite the same thing. Qmechanic brought up  but that question seems to be about whether it is so, not why it is so.