I am trying to reduce the gap between the subfigure and the subcaption.      \captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty, aboveskip=10pt}   but the line of code above does not work.  \begin{figure} \captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty, aboveskip=10pt}     \centering     \subfloat[Ground Truth]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[Recurrent Neural Network]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}         \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \caption{}     \label{fig:ood} \end{figure}
How can I reduce the gap between the subfloat and its caption? I tried to use   \captionsetup[subfigure]{aboveskip=0pt}    but it doesnt work for me. Below is the snippet i have and the output  \begin{figure} \captionsetup[subfigure]{labelformat=empty} \captionsetup[subfigure]{aboveskip=0pt}     \centering     \subfloat[Ground Truth]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[Recurrent Neural Network]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}         \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-1-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-0.5\baselineskip} \noindent\rule{14cm}{0.4pt}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-gt.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-rnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \subfloat[]{{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ood-ms/ood-3-vrnn.png} }}     \\ \vspace{-1\baselineskip}     \caption{}     \label{fig:ms} \end{figure}   Here is the output
How to generate a chirped signal Prove that "injective function $f:X\to Y$ exists" and "surjective function $g:Y\to X$ exists" is logically equivalent. Prove that   injective function $f:X\to Y$ exists surjective function $g:Y\to X$ exists   is equivalent.$(x,y\neq \emptyset)$   My approach  First,prove left to right.  If injective function $f:X\to Y$ exists, a set A can be defined like this. $$A=\{f(x):x\in X\}$$ then it is sure that $A\subset Y$, and $|A|=|X|$  And, if we define function $g$ like $$g(y)=\begin{cases}x &amp; \text{if $y\in A$ and } f(x)=y,\\x_0&amp; \text{if }y\notin A.\end{cases}$$ ($x_0$ is a fixed element of $X$)  Then, $g$ is a surjective function, so surjective function $g:Y\to X$ exists.  Now,prove right to left.  If surjective function $g:Y\to X$ exists, $\forall x \in X$, we can select a element $y\in Y$ that $g(y)=x$, which is clear that we can pick a different $y\in Y$ for $\forall x \in X$  if we define function $f$ as $f(x)=\text{one element in Y that g(that element)=$x$}$, f is a injective function, so injective function $f:X\to Y$ exists.    But, I am not sure that my approach is right, especially on proving right to left. Please check whether my approach is right, ways to improve it,  and some other ways of proving this question. Forcing an 'added' alias to every command Is it possible to forcibly add a timing alias (for lack of a better way to phrase it) to every command in bash? For example, I would like to have a specific user who, whenever a command is run, it is always wrapped either with date before and after, or time. Is this possible, and, if so, how? Subclassing tuple with multiple __init__ arguments Im new to Illustrator and have found the clipping mask is not so easy compared to Phtoshop. Could any one tell me how i can make this line texture a clipping mask over the circle? How can I synchronize my two Mac Computers? How can I set the maximum draw type for multiple objects? Irreducible element iff prime norm in Gaussian integers? I am trying to prove the following: Let $R=\mathbb{Z}[i]$, $a, b \in \mathbb{Z}, ab \neq 0$. Show that $a+bi$ is an irreducible element in $R$ if and only if $a^2 + b^2 ∈ \mathbb{Z}$ is prime. Since $R$ is a Euclidean domain, irreducible elements are prime. I think this is relevant, but am stuck on where to go from here. I want to make a schematic of this board. Can anyone tell me how? Dimensional analysis, and the notion that quantities with different units cannot be equal, is often used to justify very specific arguments, for example, you might use it to argue that a particular formula cannot possibly be the correct expression for a particular quantity. The usual approach to teaching this is to go "well kids, you can't add apples and oranges!" and then assume that the student will just find it obvious that you can't add meters and seconds.  I'm sorry, but... I don't. I'm not convinced. $5$ meters plus $10$ seconds is $15$! Screw your rules! What are the units? I don't know, I actually don't understand what that question means.  I'm specifically not convinced when this sort of thing is used to prove that certain formulae can't possibly be right. Maybe the speed of a comet is given by its period multiplied by its mass. Why not? It's a perfectly meaningful operation - just measure the quantities, multiply them, and I claim that the number you get will always equal the current speed of the comet. I don't see how "but it doesn't make sense to say mass times time is equal to distance divided by time" can be a valid counterargument, particularly because I don't really know what "mass times time" is, but that's a different issue.  If it's relevant, I'm a math student and know extremely little about physics. User suggested great corrective edit to my answer, but the edit was rejected. What can I do to approve it? What is divergence? What's optimal hardness for a kitchen knife blade? Many knife manufacturers provide the hardness value for the knife blade in the specifications - like 53HRC or 57 HRC.  What's the optimal hardness for kitchen knives? Do I always prefer the ones with higher hardness all else being equal? Difference between '>' and '-gt' What's the difference between these:  SEC=$(mysql -hxxx -Pxxx -uxxx -pxxx -se "SELECT Seconds FROM tablename")  SEC=100   Both return the same result (100). But when I test it with:  if [ ${SEC} &gt; 1 ] then     echo "SEC GT 1" else     echo "SEC LT 1" fi   The first one returns:  "SEC GT 1"   The second one returns:  "SEC LT 1"   If however, I change it to:  if [ ${SEC} -gt 1 ]   then the result is reversed.  I'm assuming it's got something to do with the datatype, and that I presumbaly need to cast one or the other to get the same result.  It's just that at present it's messing up my testing, as I have to remember to change the IF section every time. Prove that $(\mathbb{Z}_n , +)$, the integers $\pmod{n}$ under addition, is a group. Prove that $(\mathbb{Z}_n , +)$, the integers  $\pmod{n}$ under addition, is a group.  To show that this is a group, I know I need to show three things (in our text, we do not need to show that addition is closed-- rather, we show these three items):  $(a)$ Associative Law  $(b)$ Existence of Identity  $(c)$ Existence of Inverse  This is what I have been working with so far:     $(a)$ Associative Law:   First, assume that $n$ is a composite number and that $a,b \in \mathbb{Z}$ s.t. $a=nx$ and $b=ny$ for some integers, $x$ and $y$. Then $a+nx+nx=n(x+y)$.     So, this is where I am stuck for the Associative Law. I'm not sure if I am headed down the correct path to show that $\mathbb{Z}_n$ is associative.      $(b)$ Existence of Identity:   Generally, when showing the existence of an identity we can use this information for addition :  $a + 0 = 0 + a =a$.    I am unsure how to insert the modular portion of the definition into the existence of this identity. I realize that for addition, we generally look at $0$ (rather than $1$ for multiplication).     $(c)$ Existence of Inverse: I need to show that for each element $a \in \mathbb{Z}_n$ that $a^{-1}=-a$. Again, I do not know how to insert the modular portion of definition into this aspect of the proof.   My question is how to incorporate this modular information into the proof that this is a group. We have not covered the integers modulo $n$, binary operations, nor groups in my intro to proofs course. I am trying to read my text to figure out how to prove this, but have a difficult time reading and interpreting math speak. Proofs of consistency for two formal systems Do there exist two formal systems, $F_1$ and $F_2$, such that $F_1$ proves $F_2$ is consistent and $F_2$ proves $F_1$ is consistent?  Would these proofs bypass Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem?  By "consistent", I mean the formal system does not prove $X$ and NOT $X$. Mark read notifications as unread In the Android app, can we have some option to mark a read notification to unread? I know that this option is not available in the web version of Stack Exchange sites. But sometimes I open the notification in the app and it opens the post, but sometimes I can't see the exact reply to my comment or where my name is mentioned using the app.   And I want those comments to be read from the web version of the Stack Exchange site. Sometimes I forget about replying to a comment since the notification is already marked as read. So I want to mark the notification as unread and have it as a new notification displayed in the mobile app and the web version too. Hypothetical party:  1st level human wizard (PC) 3x guard NPC 1x acolyte NPC    This is the player's first time, and it's a solo campaign. The first mini-adventure involves recovering the cargo of a supply caravan that didn't make it to her magic academy due to bandit hijacking (as a sort of graduate-test). The guards and healer are on contract from the school to assist her. The acolyte is essentially just to hang back and tend to wounds and probably won't engage in combat unless someone goes down or the PC is seriously wounded.  So, with that "party" makeup, how do I determine the XP budget for a "medium" or "hard" encounter since there's no clear CR->level mapping in 5e for those NPCs (who will certainly factor into any combat as meatshields and melee damage)? I was thinking about reverse-engineering them as crumby lvl2 fighters (given the 2 HD worth of HP they have), but they certainly aren't on par with a lvl2 fighter, given the lack of action surge, second wind, etc., so the encounters would end up being too hard compared to PCs or DMPCs.   Could they be lvl1-equivalents, essentially trading any abilities a PC would have for extra HP? How would this work at later levels with higher CR NPCs (veteran, priest, mage, etc.)? I'd rather not have to build a bunch of DMPCs as hirelings, because I want the NPCs to be a bit vanilla compared to the versatility of my player. I'm already introducing 1-2 DMPCs to the game for her to take control over as she gets a feel for the flow of the game (for now, she'll handle them out of combat, and I'll effectively show her how to utilize them until she's ready).     Just to be clear, I'm comfortable with the monster-generation rules for crafting NPCs as enemies to determine their CR, but I'm confused on how to use them in the adventuring party when budgeting encounter difficulty XP. Why is the Petersen graph no Cayley graph? When I ping I have this display:  &gt; ping -i 4 www.google.fr  64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=503 ttl=46 time=45.5 ms ....... ....... 64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=508 ttl=46 time=44.9 ms 64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=509 ttl=46 time=45.1 ms   I'd like to have the time of the ping before.   Something like:  &gt; (right functions) + ping -i 7 www.google.fr  mardi 15 mai 2012, 10:29:06 (UTC+0200) - 64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=503 ttl=46 time=45.5 ms ....... ....... mardi 15 mai 2012, 10:29:13 (UTC+0200) - 64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=508 ttl=46 time=44.9 ms mardi 15 mai 2012, 10:29:20 (UTC+0200) - 64 bytes from wi-in-f94.1e100.net (173.194.67.94): icmp_seq=509 ttl=46 time=45.1 ms   How would you do this in a command line (if it's possible)?