Group in SQL Server 2012
Simulating group_concat MySQL function in Microsoft SQL Server 2005?
Is it possible for information to be transmitted faster than light by using a rigid pole? Repeating "to" and "will" in enumerations of verbs Should I use the second "will" in constructions like this one: "it will definitely help you and will make the text more readable"  And should I write "to" before every infinitive in enumeration, or only before the first one, e.g. "it helps to develop and test" or "it helps to develop and to test"? Could this example be influenced by the fact that "help" can go with to-invinitive and bare infinitive, and with other verbs the rule would be different? I believe I have solved a famous open problem. How do I convince people in the field that I am not a crank? Why is the electric field inside a conductor zero in equilibrium? My textbook says the field inside a conductor must be zero in order for the system to be equilibrium and therefore there must be no excess charge inside.  Their proof:  1) Place a gaussian surface inside the conductor. Since the system is at equilibrium, all points on the surface must have an electric field of zero.  2) Therefore the net flux is zero, implying the charge inside is zero.  3) If there is no charge inside, all excess charge must lie on the surface.  My problem:  "Since the system is at equilibrium, all points on the surface must have an electric field of zero."  Why?  Consider an conductor with no excess charge. To simplify things, say the conductor consists of a 100 free electrons and a 100 ions of charge 1$e^+$. The conductor is neutral and at equilibrium.  Now consider the field on one specific electron. There a total of 99 other electrons and 100  ions. So there would be a net field acting on that specific electron. So even though the system is at equilibrium, the net field on the individual particles is non-zero.  So a system can be at equilibrium, even if the net field inside is non-zero. What am I misunderstanding?  Another example: Consider a system consisting of one electron and one proton. If nothing is holding them back they will attract each other until they touch. After they touch, the force acting on them is still non-zero, yet they wouldn't accelerate. Prove that the additive groups $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are not isomorphic. Is my proof below correct? What specific property of rationals did I exploit in my proof? It looks like the property I exploited is the following: Given any positive rational, I can always write it as sum of arbitrary number of positive rationals, whereas given any positive integer I cannot write it as a sum of arbitrary number of positive integers. Has it got to do with the fact that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a field?       Problem Prove that the additive groups $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are not isomorphic.   Solution Let there exist an isomorphism between $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$. Now consider the element $1_{\mathbb{Q}}$. We then have $\phi(1_{\mathbb{Q}}) = z \in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $\phi$ has to be a bijection, $z$ cannot be zero, since $\phi(0) = 0$.  Now consider the element $\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}$. We now have $$z = \phi(1_{\mathbb{Q}}) = \phi\left(\underbrace{\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}} + \left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}} + \cdots + \left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}}_{z+1 \text{ times }} \right) = (z+1) \phi\left(\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}\right)$$ However, there is no element in $y \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $(z+1)y = z$.    First update  Actually I realize that I complicated it unnecessarily. Instead, we can do like this. Since $\phi$ is an isomorphism, we have $\phi(q_{\mathbb{Q}}) = 1_{\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $q \in Q$. However, $$\phi(q) = \phi(q/2+q/2) = 2\phi(q/2)$$ And there is no $y \in Z$, such that $2y=1$. Hence, $\phi(q/2)$ remains unmapped.    Thanks How to backup 20+TB of data? We have a NAS server at the company I work for that is being used for storing photography sessions. Each session is approximately 100gb. Over the last couple of years this server has accumulated 10+ TB of data, and we are increasing the amount of photoshoots exponentially. I estimate that by the end of next year we will have 20+ TB stored on this NAS. We are currently backing this server up to tape using LTO-5 tapes with Symantec BackupExec. Since the size of this server has grown, full backups of this server are not completing overnight. Does anyone have any suggestion on how to backup this amount of data? Should we be backing it up to tape? Are there any other options which may be better? Necromancy In Harry Potter How is Necromancy accomplished in the Harry Potter universe?  I thought that people cannot be raised from the dead in Harry Potter.  Were bodies just use as puppets that can only do simple tasks, for instance when Dumbledore and Harry were getting the locket, the  were there to guard the locket.  Also, besides Inferi were there any Zombies in Harry Potter? TV series with pull out phone screens and pink/purple space ships I’m looking for a TV show where an alien race comes to Earth and sets up big purple/pink cylindrical or cone shaped spaceships in various cities around the world. The Aliens are not hostile but actually created peace and eliminated hunger on Earth.    I believe the aliens had some human features and were wise and calm the main actor had a phone with a pull out screen I believe the main actor worked for or with the aliens I believe that in the last episode some humans and aliens go into some kind of pods and perhaps leave Earth? one of the space ships was located in a major US city. Maybe Washington DC or another East Coast city   Could someone please tell me what TV series this is? I have been searching everywhere and cannot find it. Thanks! Traveling to the US with new passport, visa on the old one I have a valid B1/B2 US visa expiring about a year from now. The passport it's in expired a few years ago, and I recently got a new one.   The passport number does not match, but the national ID number, mentioned in both, does (it used to be the same as your national ID, but not anymore)  Can I travel to the US carrying both passports? Or is it asking for trouble? (I read a few years ago that it was possible, but that might have changed)  Should I just get a new visa to avoid potential complications? Which dialects of English consider "would" to be a polite form of "will"? My recent trip to India exposed me to many sentences using &quot;would&quot; as a polite substitute for &quot;will&quot;, as in  Please make sure to leave on time. The last bus would depart at 8PM. Thanks for checking out early. However, there would be no refund.  I am not familiar with such patterns in AmE or BE. Are they common in particular settings that I'm not aware of? How common are they in India? Note: the following query seems to return a bunch of other examples (among conditional uses of course) inurl:.co.in &quot;would&quot; Calculating the limit $\lim((n!)^{1/n})$ Find $\lim_{n\to\infty} ((n!)^{1/n})$. The question seemed rather simple at first, and then I realized I was not sure how to properly deal with this at all. My attempt: take the logarithm,  $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \ln((n!)^{1/n}) =  \lim_{n\to\infty} (1/n)\ln(n!) =  \lim_{n\to\infty} (\ln(n!)/n)$$ Applying L'hopital's rule:  $$\lim_{n\to\infty} [n! (-\gamma + \sum(1/k))]/n! = \lim_{n\to\infty} (-\gamma + \sum(1/k))=  \lim_{n\to\infty} (-(\lim(\sum(1/k) - \ln(n)) + \sum(1/k))  = \lim_{n\to\infty} (\ln(n) + \sum(1/k)-\sum(1/k)  = \lim_{n\to\infty} (\ln(n))$$ I proceeded to expand the $\ln(n)$ out into Maclaurin form $$\lim_{n\to\infty} (n + (n^2/2)+...) = \infty$$ Since I $\ln$'ed in the beginning, I proceeded to e the infinity  $$= e^\infty  = \infty$$  So am I write in how I approached this or am I just not on the right track? I know it diverges, I was just wanted to try my best to explicitly show it. Virtual Box Toolbar Hidden. How to show? Approximation algorithms for min vector subset-sum over GF(2) In  vzn asked about the following problem, which I'll call Vector-Subset-Sum.     Given a set of vectors $v_i$ over GF(2) and a target vector $y$, is there a subset of the $v_i$ summing to $y$?   In the answers, comments, and referenced papers I noted   The decision problem is in P. The natural minimization problem (finding the smallest subset) is NP-hard. It's related to the problem of finding sparse codewords in a linear code.   My question is: are there any known polynomial-time approximation algorithms for the minimization problem in (2)? I know very little about coding theory, so there may be some obvious or well-known approximation-preserving reductions to (3) that I have not seen. Meaning of the word "axiom" Thus, axioms are propositions we assume to be true and we use them in an axiomatic theory as premises to infer conclusions, which are called "theorems" of this theory.  For example, we can use the  to prove theorems of arithmetic.  This is one meaning of the word "axiom". But I recognized that the word "axiom" is also used in quite different contexts.  For example, a group is defined to be an algebraic structure consisting of a set $G$, an operation $G\times G\to G: (a, b)\mapsto ab$, an element $1\in G$ and a mapping $G\to G: a\mapsto a^{-1}$ such that the following conditions, the so-called group axioms, are satisfied:   $\forall a, b, c\in G.\ (ab)c=a(bc)$, $\forall a\in G.\ 1a=a=a1$ and $\forall a\in G.\ aa^{-1}=1=a^{-1}a$.      Why are these conditions (that an algebraic structure has to satisfy to be called a group) called axioms? What have these conditions to do with the word "axiom" in the sense specified above? I am really asking about this modern use of the word "axiom" in mathematical jargon. It would be very interesting to see how the modern use of the word "axiom" historically developed from the original meaning.   Now, let me give more details why it appears to me that the word is being used in two different meanings:  As peter.petrov did, one can argue that group theory is about the conclusions one can draw from the group axioms just as arithmetic is about the conclusions one can draw from the Peano axioms. But in my opinion there is a big difference: while arithmetic is really about natural numbers, the successor operation, addition, multiplication and the "less than" relation, group theory is not just about group elements, the group operation, the identity element and the inverse function. Group theory is rather about models of the group axioms. Thus: The axioms of group theory are not the group axioms, the axioms of group theory are the axioms of set theory.  Theorems of arithmetic can be formalized as sentences over the signature (a. k. a. language) $\{0, s, +, \cdot\}$, while theorems of group theory cannot always be formalized as sentences over the signature $\{\cdot, 1, ^{-1}\}$. Let me give an example: A typical theorem of arithmetic is the case $n=4$ of Fermat's last theorem. It can be formalized as follows over the signature $\{0, s, +, \cdot\}$: $$\neg\exists x\exists y\exists z(x\not = 0\land y\not = 0\land z\not = 0\quad\land\quad x\cdot x\cdot x\cdot x + y\cdot y\cdot y\cdot y = z\cdot z\cdot z\cdot z).$$ A typical theorem of group theory is  which states that for any finite group G, the order of every subgroup H of G divides the order of G. I think that one cannot formalize this theorem as a sentence over the "group theoretic" signature $\{\cdot, 1, ^{-1}\}$; or can one? I have installed a vlc in centos 6.5. I want to run it as root. But I get the following error,      "VLC is not supposed to be run as root. Sorry. If you need to use   real-time priorities and/or privileged TCP ports you can use   vlc-wrapper (make sure it is Set-UID root and cannot be run by   non-trusted users first)." I saw a lot of times claims that they have to be exhaustive (the examples in such books were always set in such way, that they were indeed), on the other hand I also saw a lot of times books stating they should be exclusive (for example $\mathrm{H}_{0}$ as $\mu_1=\mu_2$ and $\mathrm{H}_{1}$ as $\mu_1&gt;\mu_2$) without clarifying the exhaustive issue. Only before typing in this question I found somewhat stronger statement on the  -- "The alternative need not be the logical negation of the null hypothesis".  Could someone more experienced explain which is true, and I would be grateful for shedding some light on the (historical?) reasons for such difference (the books were written by statisticians after all, i.e. scientists, not philosophers). How to understand the combination formula? I'm reading an algorithm book. In which it mentioned:     Imagine (once again) you have n people lined up to see a movie, but   there are only k places left in  the theater. How many possible   subsets of size k could possibly get in? That’s exactly $C(n,k)$, of   course,  and the metaphor may do some work for us here. We already   know that we have $n!$ possible orderings of  the entire line. What if   we just count all these possibilities and let in the first $k$? The only   problem then is  that we’ve counted the subsets too many times. A   certain group of k friends could stand at the head of  the line in a   lot of the permutations; in fact, we could allow these friends to   stand in any of their $k!$  possible permutations, and the remainder of   the line could stand in any of their $(n–k)!$ possible  permutations   without affecting who’s getting in. Aaaand this gives us the answer!       $$C(n,k)= \frac{n!}{k!(n −k)!}$$      This formula just counts all possible permutations of the line (n!),   and divides by the number of  times we count each “winning subset,” as   explained.   I'm not quite understand why the reminder can in any $(n-k)!$ permutation, if he stands at the end of the queue, won't he let all these people in?  And why I should use $n!$ to divide by $k!(n-k)!$ ? Didn't see that consequence from the metaphor.  If you have better ideas to explain this formula, you can use them of course. How to find the nearest parent of a Git branch? Show a Form without stealing focus? I'm using a Form to show notifications (it appears at the bottom right of the screen), but when I show this form it steals the focus from the main Form. Is there a way to show this "notification" form without stealing focus? Hello everyone interested. Here's a seemingly simple problem.  Suppose $G$ is a complete, simple graph with vertices $\{1,2,..,n\}$, $n\geq k\geq 3$.  How many cycles of length $k$ can we have on $G$?  The statement seems simple but I have trouble putting everything together.  So I say fix a vertex and start forming cycles with length k. But I get nowhere... What is the proper approach to this problem since counting is not easy? Is there a relevant theorem that I am unaware of?  Thanks for any help...