What exactly does putting extern "C" into C++ code do?  For example:  extern "C" {    void foo(); }
Why do we need to use:  extern "C" { #include &lt;foo.h&gt; }   Specifically:     When should we use it? What is happening at the compiler/linker level that requires us to use it?   How in terms of compilation/linking does this solve the problems which require us to use it?
What is the difference between align and equation environment when I only want to display one line of equation? I am typesetting a physics document, and sometimes I need to type equations of several lines while in most cases I only need to type one-line formula. So is it OK if I always use align environment instead of switching between align and equation What are their differences? Canonical map $R/(I\cap J)\rightarrow R/I\times _{R/(I+J)} R/J$ is an isomorphism What determines which pokemon you are allowed to place at a gym? So I defeated a Team Valor gym earlier today using my highest cp Pidgeot. It turned grey, so I went to claim it with that Pidgeot, except it wouldn't let me. What determines which pokemon you are allowed to place at a gym? Is it just those who have participated in a battle can't? Is there a time period for it? What about training at a friendly gym? Does this impact anything? Where can a tourist apply for a UK Visitor (standard) Visa? Let $\,f : \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a infinitely differentiable function that is  increasing and bounded. Then is it true that $\lim_{x\to \infty}f'(x)=0$? Is “I medalled in volleyball” a grammatically correct sentence? According to OED, medal is a verb and a noun. I haven't seen any usage of the word as a verb, but I am assuming the above sentence is correct. Perfect infinitive How do I disable auto-maximizing of newly launched windows in GNOME? I'm exploring the effects of removing the intercept in a logistic regression model.  Assume a model:  $$logit(Y = 1) = \beta_1 x + \beta_2z + 0$$  with $x$ and $z$ being categorical variables with 2 levels each and no intercept.  I understood that having no intercept with categorical predictors produce coefficients that compare the $P(Y = 1)$ in each level of the two predictor against a null case where $P(Y=1) = 0.5$ or $logit(Y=1) = 0$.  I noticed a phenomenon that can understand. Using glm() function in R if you change the order of the variable in the right hand part of the formula, the coefficients change too. But even more oddly, the coefficient of the first variable is always the same.  Here's an R demo:  y &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T)) x &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T)) z &lt;- as.factor(sample(rep(1:2), 30, T))  coef(glm(y ~ x + z - 1, binomial) #        x1         x2         z2  #-0.1764783  0.3260739 -0.1335192  coef(glm(y ~ z + x - 1, binomial)) #        z1         z2         x2  #-0.1764783 -0.3099976  0.5025523    As you can see the first predictors have the same coefficient while the other are different in the two models.  Here is what I expected and instead behave differently than what I though:   Since every level of the two predictors is compared to the same null case, I expected to have the same coefficients in the two models, independently from the order in which I use them. I expected to see the coefficients of every level of every predictor, instead the coefficient for the 1 level of the second predictor is not shown. I therefore assume that only the first variable is compared against the null case, while the second is compared against a reference level; but what is this level? Is it $P(Y = 1 | X = 1 \cap Z = 1)$? Reproducing one of the models WITH the intercept we get:  coef(glm(y ~ x + z - 1, binomial) #        x1         x2         z2  #-0.1764783  0.3260739 -0.1335192  coef(glm(y ~ x + z, binomial)) #(Intercept)         x2          z2  #-0.1764783   0.5025523  -0.1335192    As expected x1 become the intercept, and x2 is likely relative to x1. z1 is missing also in this case and z2 is the same as in the model without intercept.  Thus should I assume that the comparison against the null case $P(Y = 1) = 0.5$ is made only for the first variable in a formula, while the other are compared against the usual intercept? Is this behavior normal? What about the fact that the first coefficient has the same value whichever the order of the predictors in the formula? What if I want to compare all level of each predictor against the null case and have a coefficient for all levels? Or it's theoretically impossible for some reason I don't get? For three days straight, I have connected to the public WiFi network at my local library. Each day, I have seen a different prompt in Terminal. Here are some of the prompts I've seen:  zp-pc:~ russell$ mary-pc:~ russell$ normob05:~ russell$   I have check under System Preferences -> Sharing, and my computer name is "Russell's Mac". Also, I set the DHCP Client ID to "RUSSMAC" under System Preferences -> Network -> Advanced -> TCP/IP, but I still see the random host names at the Terminal prompt.  Why is my computer name changing every day? I would like to prove inductively that $${2n\choose n}=\sum_{i=0}^n{n\choose i}^2.$$  I know a couple of non-inductive proofs, but I can't do it this way. The inductive step eludes me. I tried naively things like $${2n+2\choose n+1}={2n+2\over n+1}{2n+1\choose n}=2\cdot {2n+1\over n+1}{2n\choose n},$$  But I don't think it can lead me anywhere. I would like the proof to be as simple as possible. Can I safely use my camera with a external power supply? The Equation $11^x + 13^x + 17^x =19^x  $  Has    No Real Roots Only One Real Roots Exactly Two Real Roots  More than Two Real Roots    What I have done is   The function $f(x)=11^x + 13^x + 17^x -19^x  $ is strictly increasing and being always positive it have no roots "Reality" of EM waves vs. wavefunction of individual photons - why not treat the wave function as equally "Real"? In thinking how to ask this question (somewhat) succinctly, I keep coming back to a Microwave Oven.  A Microwave Oven has a grid of holes over the window specifically designed to be smaller in diameter than the wavelength of the microwaves it produces, yet larger than the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum - this is so you can watch your food being heated without getting an eye full of microwaves.  The "realness" of electromagnetic waves seems indisputable - both from the microwave example above, and also because if I want to broadcast a radio wave with a certain wavelength, then I need to make sure I have an antenna of corresponding length to produce the wave I'm looking for.  Furthermore, we discuss and treat these waves as real, measurable "objects" that exist and can be manipulated.     Now, if I want to describe the behavior of my Microwave Oven in the framework of QM (let's pretend my oven is going to only produce 1 photon of energy corresponding to a wavelength of the microwave spectrum for simplicity) then I'll describe the behavior of that photon as a wavefunction that evolves over time and gives a probability distribution within my microwave that similarly does not allow the photon to pass through the safety grid and exit the oven cavity giving me a retinal burn.  The difference is, the wavefunction is never treated as something "real" in this description.  When the safety grid is described as working to protect you because it has holes smaller than the wavelength of the classical waves it's blocking, this is a useful description that seems to describe "real" objects/be-ables.  While it is possible to describe why an individual photon has low probability of passing through the same grid but extended physical properties such as wavelength (in space) are treated as non-real because we're dealing with a point particle and with behavior described by something we also treat as non-real (the wavefunction); it seems unclear to me why we insist this wave function which predicts behavior of physical measurements so well is somehow "non-real."    Put another way, if we have no problem treating EM waves as "Real," then why do we insist on treating the wavefunction that describes the same behavior as "unreal?"  I understand there is recent research (Eric Cavalcanti and his group for one) trying to argue this point, but as every respectable physics professor, I've ever encountered, has treated the wavefunction as an indisputably non-real mathematical tool, I needed to ask this community for an answer. Backup GNOME-Terminal What is the proper etiquette at Japanese onsen? Japan is a volcanically active country which means it has a plethora of onsen (hot springs) all around the country.  Visiting these onsen is supposed to be a popular vacation destination for the work-weary Japanese.    I've been told that, as with other things in Japan, there is a rather strict etiquette surrounding the use of the onsen.  In particular, the two things I've read about so far are   Swimming Suits are not allowed. It is very important that one bathe immediately before entering the onsen.   Are these true?  Are there any other taboos that a naive American should be aware of? $\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{\sin^{2n+1}(x)}{x} \mathrm {d}x$ Evaluate Integral Find files using ls and wildcards pwd : ../bin under bin I have a directory called datafiles.  Use meta characters and the ls -lL command (with lower and upper case L) to list all filenames under the datafiles directory that contain a dot . with the letter 'f' or 'u' anywhere after the dot.  I tried: ls -lL datafiles *.*f*u  ls -lL datafiles .[f*u]     Thank you for answering. Unfortunately, none of the solutions worked the way I wanted it.  By clarifying the question, /bin/datafiles/file.backup is the root to the directory. From the /bin directory, the command I used is ls -lL datafiles followed by meta characters.  I'm looking for file.backup that has a dot and followed by f or u, not directly followed by f or u (anywhere after the dot), and not ending by f or u. How did Stannis's army get north of the wall? If Mance Rayder had to attack Castle Black to use the tunnel to get through the Wall and get out of the north, how did Stannis get his army across the Wall into the north without anyone knowing? If there was another way over the Wall wouldn't the wildings go that way too? Ok, so PHP isn't the best language to be dealing with arbitrarily large integers in, considering that it only natively supports 32-bit signed integers. What I'm trying to do though is create a class that could represent an arbitrarily large binary number and be able to perform simple arithmetic operations on two of them (add/subtract/multiply/divide).  My target is dealing with 128-bit integers.  There's a couple of approaches I'm looking at, and problems I see with them. Any input or commentary on what you would choose and how you might go about it would be greatly appreciated.  Approach #1: Create a 128-bit integer class that stores its integer internally as four 32-bit integers. The only problem with this approach is that I'm not sure how to go about handling overflow/underflow issues when manipulating individual chunks of the two operands.  Approach #2: Use the bcmath extension, as this looks like something it was designed to tackle. My only worry in taking this approach is the scale setting of the bcmath extension, because there can't be any rounding errors in my 128-bit integers; they must be precise. I'm also worried about being able to eventually convert the result of the bcmath functions into a binary string (which I'll later need to shove into some mcrypt encryption functions).  Approach #3: Store the numbers as binary strings (probably LSB first). Theoretically I should be able to store integers of any arbitrary size this way. All I would have to do is write the four basic arithmetic functions to perform add/sub/mult/div on two binary strings and produce a binary string result. This is exactly the format I need to hand over to mcrypt as well, so that's an added plus. This is the approach I think has the most promise at the moment, but the one sticking point I've got is that PHP doesn't offer me any way to manipulate the individual bits (that I know of). I believe I'd have to break it up into byte-sized chunks (no pun intended), at which point my questions about handling overflow/underflow from Approach #1 apply.