I get this result:  8.01 - 8.0 #=&gt; 0.009999999999999787   I want my answer to be 0.01. What can I do to fix this? How can I get this to happen? I guess this is float math. Is this due to floating point precision?
Consider the following code:   0.1 + 0.2 == 0.3  -&gt;  false   0.1 + 0.2         -&gt;  0.30000000000000004   Why do these inaccuracies happen?
Bounds for $n$-th prime In  I have found that the bounds for $n$-th prime is given by, $$n(\ln n+\ln \ln n)&gt;p_n&gt;n(\ln n+\ln \ln n-1)$$ for all $n\ge6$. Are there even stronger bounds for the $n$-th prime?   If possible (of course if the answer is affirmative) in the answer (or comment) please give the link of the paper in which it first appears. Is it common to review papers assigned to your supervisor? More than one time dimension We know that space-time dimensions are 3+1 macroscopically, but what if 2+2?  Obviously it is tough to imagine two time dimensions, but mathematically we can always imagine as either having two parameters $t_1$ and $t_2$ or else in Lorentz matrix $$\eta_{00} = \eta_{11} = -1$$ and, $$\eta_{22} = \eta_{33} = 1.$$  Is there any physical reason for not taking this, like the norms become negative or something else? Quantum mechanics textbooks that use path integrals I'm looking for a textbook in quantum mechanics that relies heavily on Green functions and the path integral formalism to supplement my QM books. I want to do some calculations using alternative methods (path integrals, green functions, Lagrangians etc). Improving "demonstrate a minimal understanding" close reason Note: the eventual outcome of this discussion involved dropping this particular off-topic reason, along with other changes. See:  &nbsp; &mdash;Shog     I was using the reason "demonstrate a minimal understanding" myself quite frequently, but the more I review, the more I have doubts about it and I think this reason can either be dropped entirely or at least rephrased, so I started to use "problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem" instead:     Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved.   So the poster has posted some description, maybe even a snippet of code and in his mind that already proves that he has that minimal understanding required. After all he described the problem and what he tried to solve. So telling him that he lacks that understanding is rather rude, and from the posters point of view doesn't even apply. What both version of the reason not emphasize is that a description of a problem is not various versions of     it doesn't work   but that we rather mean really specific details (see below). I can often see in the reopen review queue that the "improved" version just includes a more verbatim description, while what usually would be expected is some specific error message, a trace or a log, or whatever applies.  Then it continues with:     Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist   comparing it to:     problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.   Which says essentially the same, only in more detail.   So the "minimum understanding" reason is IMO a more rude version of the reason telling the user that an SSCCE is missing.  The intent of giving this reason is to tell the user that he needs to give exact details to be able to help him, so IMO a checklist would be much better. Something like:     Your question was closed because it may not provide enough details. Things you can do to improve your question to get an answer include:         Format the code in a way that makes it readable and easily understandable.   Provide the smallest working sample of code demonstrating the problem (link to SSCCE)   Include your input and output.   If applicable provide logs (i.e. Android debugging log, stack trace, etc.).   If applicable provide the exact error messages (compiler, etc.).      And something like this should be best included already in the banner that appears when a question is closed instead of being hidden in some pages you often enough have to actively looking for.  It might be helpful to adjust this, based on the tags or close reason, as I realize that I'm more focused on the programming area, and the above list may not apply to other areas of SO.  Update  Another thing I forgot to mention (but wanted to) is this:     Questions asking for code   Is IMO essentially an invitation of the type of questions     I have a problem, can you provide the solution? (with an optional please)   while     Questions concerning problems with code you've written   puts at least some emphasis on the fact that the poster has to put some effort himself in trying to solve the problem by providing the code which he used to attempt the solution. Continuity and existence of directional derivatives at all directions of a $f:\mathbb{R}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $f(x,y)=\frac{2x^2y}{x^2+y^2}$ Let $f(x,y)=     \begin{cases}       \frac{2x^2y}{x^2+y^2} &amp; if &amp; (x,y) \neq (0,0) \\       0       &amp; if &amp; (x,y)=(0,0) .  \end{cases}$  (i) Prove the directional derivatives of $f$ exist in any direction at the point $(0,0)$.  (ii)¿Is $f$ continuous on (0,0)?  For (i) I took $u=(u_{1},u_{2}) \in \mathbb{R^{2}}$ such $\|u\|=1$ and $0=(0,0)$. So $$\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{f(0+ t u)-f(0)}{t}=\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{2(tu_{1})^2 (tu_{2})}{(tu_{1})^4+(tu_{2})^2}=\lim_{t \to 0}\frac{(t^2 u_{1}^2)(t^2 u_{1}^{2}) tu_{2}}{t^{4}u_{1}^{4}+t^{2} u_{2}^{2}}.$$ But I cannot find the limit when $t$ aproaches to $0$. Which by finding them I would prove the directional derivative exist at every direction right?  For (ii) I got the intuition $f$ is not continuous at $(0,0)$ so I took $\lbrace (\frac{1}{k},\frac{1}{k}) \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $\lbrace (\frac{1}{k},0) \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}$ which are two different sequences in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ converging to $(0,0)$. However, $\lbrace f(\frac{1}{k},\frac{1}{k}) \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}}=\lbrace \frac{1}{k^{2}} \rbrace_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \to 0$ and $\lbrace f(\frac{1}{k},0) \rbrace_{k \in \mathbb{N}} \to 0$. So maybe my intuition was not right? Can anyone help me end the proof of continuity or not continuity , please? What is the benefit of review a scientific paper as a referee? What's the main difference between int.Parse() and Convert.ToInt32 What is the main difference between int.Parse() and Convert.ToInt32()? Which one is to be preferred Should I be worried about electro-static discharge? Doing mostly micro-controller work, I have never bothered with grounding myself with a wrist-strap or any other implementation. Should I be worried about this? How serious is ESD when working at my workbench on projects? $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum^n_{k=1} \frac{1}{k+n}$ Could you explain how to find this limit?  $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \sum^n_{k=1} \frac{1}{k+n}$ When using the xhtml1-transitional.dtd doctype, collecting a credit card number with the following HTML  &lt;input type="text" id="cardNumber" name="cardNumber" autocomplete='off'/&gt;   will flag a warning on the W3C validator:     there is no attribute "autocomplete".   Is there a W3C / standards way to disable browser auto-complete on sensitive fields in a form? Somewhere in the provided answer:   $$\int \frac{1}{\sqrt{2-x^2}} dx = \sin^{-1}{\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}}$$  How did they get that? What I have:   $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2-x^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1-\frac{x^2}{2})}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2} \sqrt{1-\frac{x^2}{2}}}$$  $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \int \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}})^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sin^{-1}{\frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}}$$  So I have an extra $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ ... I probably had some stupid mistakes? Quick question about curly braces not showing up Ii am writing a short code, so I doubt anything else in the code is causing the problem. This is the problematic line of code:  \[ M_R := \max {|f(z)|: |z - z_0| = R }\le M\]   It doesn't show the curly braces. I've tried using \left{ and \right} but to no avail.  What should I do?  Thank you Show that the set of all finite subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ is countable.   I'm not sure how to do this problem. I keep trying to think of an explicit formula for 1-1 correspondence like adding all the elements in each subset and sending that sum to itself in the natural numbers, but that wouldn't be 1-1 because, for example, the set {1,2,3} would send to 6 and so would the set {2,4}.  Multiplying all the elements in each subset and sending that product to itself in the natural numbers wouldn't work either since, for example, {2,3} would send to 5 and so would the set {1,5}. Any ideas? For any triangle with sides $a$, $b$, $c$, prove the inequality $$a^2b(a-b)+b^2c(b-c)+c^2a(c-a)\ge 0 .$$   This is IMO 1983 problem 6.  I tried substituting $a=x+y$, $b=y+z$, $c=z+x$ but well it doesn't help in any sense except wasting 3 pages that lead to nothing (please don't mind the joke). Using $a=2R\sin A$, $b=2R\sin B$, $c=2R\sin C$ also didn't lead to anything for me. Could you give me a hint for finding the proper substitution? Python inheritance - how to disable a function In C++ you can disable a function in parent's class by declaring it as private in the child class. How can this be done in Python? I.E. How can I hide parent's function from child's public interface? I am talking about when you click on the icons in the dock This command gsettings set org.compiz.unityshell:/org/compiz/profiles/unity/plugins/unityshell/ launcher-minimize-window true  which works for Unity Launcher, (obviously) does not work.  Related to: What is the difference between a "proof by contradiction" and "proving the contrapositive"? Intuitive, it feels like doing the exact same thing. And when I compare an exercise, one person proves by contradiction, and the other proves the contrapositive, the proofs look almost exactly the same.  For example, say I want to prove: $P \implies Q$ When I want to prove by contradiction, I would say assume this is not true. Assume $Q$ is not true, and $P$ is true. Blabla, but this implies $P$ is not true, which is a contradiction.  When I want to prove the contrapositive, I say. Assume $Q$ is not true. Blabla, this implies $P$ is not true.  The only difference in the proof is that I assume $P$ is true in the beginning, when I want to prove by contradiction. But this feels almost redundant, as in the end I always get that this is not true. The only other way that I could get a contradiction is by proving that $Q$ is true. But this would be the exact same things as a direct proof.   Can somebody enlighten me a little bit here ? For example: Are there proofs that can be proven by contradiction but not proven by proving the contrapositve? Relativity Of Simultaneity Confusion Is every metric space a subspace of some connected metric space? If the space itself is connected then we're done, but if not then I think we can extend our metric space to make it connected.  I'm not sure whether this will work or not, but intuitively I think the answer is yes.