every time that i put a (figure) in latex, it appears in some random places rather than the place I actually write the code. for example, for the following code, it will be appeared at the beginning of the next page of the place that the code is placed in the code:  \begin{figure*} \centering \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{example.eps} \caption{Figure} \end{figure*}   what to do?
Is there any package or a method to force LaTeX to keep floating environments like table and figure closer to where they are declared?
Why must local variables have initial values? Apt-get stuck at 0% [Working] Line breaks in listings Is there a way like wrap the line after at most 60 letters but it should not break inside some commands like listings does?  Example:      \documentclass[a5paper]{article}     \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}     \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}     \usepackage{listings}     \usepackage{xcolor}      \lstset{%       language=[LaTeX]TeX,       backgroundcolor=\color{gray!25},       basicstyle=\ttfamily,       breaklines=true,       columns=fullflexible     }      \begin{document}     \begin{lstlisting}     The roadrunner is the fastest running bird \remark{Check this again with a zoologist!}.     \end{lstlisting}     \end{document}   Output:      The roadrunner is the fastest running bird         remark{Check this again with a zoologist!}.   That should not happen! In my eyes this problem is not discussed in . Is it true that quantum mechanics technically allows anything to happen? Maybe this is a silly question (I think it is), but it's a question I'm arguing with some of my friends for a long time.  The ultimate question is: Is everything (in our Universe) possible ?  I've read some books (Penrose, Hawking, Greene, etc.) where it was clearly stated several times that quantum mechanics allows any situation to happen (e.g. everything is possible) - even with absurdly tiny probabilities?  Does this mean only physically possible - or "ultimate" possible ?  For example (I know this example seems really absurd, but I'm saying this so you get the idea) what my friends clame it is possible:   If I ask my friend(s): "Is it possible there is a Sun-sized star in my pocket right now?" They will respond: "Yes, there is very very tiny possibility this can be true!" Etc. I wrote a regular expression which works well in a certain program (grep, sed, awk, perl, python, ruby, ksh, bash, zsh, find, emacs, vi, vim, gedit, …). But when I use it in a different program (or on a different unix variant), it stops matching. Why? Divisibility by 7 rule, and Congruence Arithmetic Laws How to fill down in Numbers without dragging? Passive POE: Need 5V @ 2A at the destination Consider the function : $$f: \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R} , (x,y) \mapsto   \begin{cases}         0 &amp; \text{for } (x,y)=(0,0) \\    \frac{x^3}{x^2+y^2}       &amp; \text{for } (x,y) \neq (0,0)   \end{cases} $$  Show that $f$ not differentiable at $(0,0)$ but all directional derivatives exist.  I don't know how to tackle this problem. Can someone give some hints or solve the problem? Thanks :) Finding determinant for a matrix with one value on the diagonal and another everywhere else Let us look the the matrix  $\left(\begin{array}{ccccc} a &amp; b &amp; b &amp; b &amp; b\\ b &amp; a &amp; b &amp; b &amp; b\\ b &amp; b &amp; a &amp; b &amp; b\\ b &amp; b &amp; b &amp; a &amp; b\\ b &amp; b &amp; b &amp; b &amp; a \end{array}\right)$  It has one value, $a$, on the main diagonal, and another value, $b$ everywhere else. Let us assume that we are over a ring and that $a$ is invertible.  I wish to find the determinant of every $n\times n$ matrix of this form ($a$ on the diagonal, $b$ everywhere else). Using row and column operations I have managed to transform the matrix to upper-triangular form and found formula for specific cases. Generalizing it I got to the following formula:  $\det(A) = a\left(a-b\right)^{n-2}\left(a+\left(n-2\right)b-\frac{\left(n-1\right)b^{2}}{a}\right)$  I think I can prove it with row-operations in the general case with a little patience.  However, I'm wondering if there is a "smart" way of getting to this formula that I'm missing and if there is a nicer representation of it. Also, what can be said when $a$ is not invertible? (esp. the case where we are over a field and $a=0$). Generating ordered combination of numbers I can form numbers with only 0,2,4,6,8.  The sequence is as follows  0,2,4,6,8,20,22,24,26,28,40,42,.....  How to generate an ordered sequence of numbers from combinations of 0,2,4,6,8. I am interested in comparing the computational cost of grid search vs. random search algorithm for hyperparameter tuning. Is random search computationally less expensive then grid search? Is there an article/paper that talks about this topic? Thank you, What is the effect of having correlated predictors in a multiple regression model? I learned in my linear models class that if two predictors are correlated and both are included in a model, one will be insignificant. For example, assume the size of a house and the number of bedrooms are correlated. When predicting the cost of a house using these two predictors, one of them can be dropped because they are both providing a lot of the same information. Intuitively, this makes sense, but I have a some more technical questions:   How does this effect manifest itself in p-values of the regression coefficients when including only one or including both predictors in the model? How does the variance of the regression coefficients get affected by including both predictors in the model or just having one? How do I know which predictor the model will choose to be less significant? How does including only one or including both predictors change the value/variance of my forecasted cost? How to get Beamer Math to look like Article Math I have a very stupid question. I developed a website that has only one page at the public html directory(index.php).  all content are dynamically loaded as different pages.   How can i SEO my pages for google?  i mean like the what we type in this site are .............i believe stored in database and search engine find these pages like any static pages...  Just a little tip would be appreciable.......! Over the past couple of days there have been a few questions about overlapping proposals and questions that could belong on multiple sites:        What is the best practice before / after asking a question if you think your question might be better on another site?  or  If I think my question might belong on multiple sites as per the above posts? $ d_1,d_2\mid n\iff {\rm lcm}(d_1,d_2)\mid n\ $ [LCM Universal Property] Is $$d_1\mid n,d_2\mid n\iff [d_1,d_2]\mid n$$ true ? And if yes, how can I prove it ? I recall that $[d_1,d_2]$ is the least common multiple.  My tries  For the implication : Let $d_1\mid n$ and $d_2\mid n$. Then, $d_1d_2\mid n^2$. By the way, since $d_1,d_2\mid n$, we have that $(d_1,d_2)\mid n$ where $(d_1,d_2)=:\gcd(d_1,d_2)$  and thus $$[d_1,d_2](d_1,d_2)\mid n^2.$$  Question: How can I get $[d_1,d_2]\mid n$ from this?  For the converse, since $d_1,d_2\mid [d_1,d_2]\mid n$, the claim follow. A proof of the fact that the Fourier transform is not surjective from $\mathcal{L}^1(\mathbb{R})$ to $C_0( \mathbb{R})$ Let $f_n = \mathbb 1_{[-n,n]}$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$   Compute explicitly $f_n \star f_1$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.  Show that $f_n \star f_1$ is the Fourier transform of $g_n = \frac{  \sin{(2\pi x)} \sin{(2 \pi nx)}}{\pi ^2 x^2}$  Show that $\| g_n \|_1 \to \infty$  Deduce that the Fourier transform is not surjective from $\mathcal{L}^1(\mathbb{R})$ to $C_0( \mathbb{R})$    Here, $C_0(\mathbb{R})$ is the space of continuous functions $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ that tends to $0$ at $-\infty$ and $+\infty$. I managed to compute 1) and proved 2). But I don't know how to prove 3). Moreover, I don't see how can 1), 2) and 3) prove 4). Can anyone help? For every $p\in [1,\infty)$, consider the set $\ell^p$ of real sequences $x=(x_n)=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ such that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty |x_n|^p&lt;\infty$. This is a Banach space with the norm $\Vert x\Vert_p=(\sum|x_n|^p)^{1/p}$.  I have the following problem:     Is it true that $\ell^p=\bigcup_{1\leq q&lt;p}\ell^q$ for $p&gt;1$?   I don't think it is true, but I'm having problems to show this. Clearly, the statement is true for some $p&gt;1$ iff it is true for every $p&gt;1$.  I'm trying to find a sequence $(a_n)$ such that $\sum |a_n|^s$ converges iff $s\geq 1$. I've tried many sequences (such as $(n^{1+1/n})$, involving $\log$, etc...), but none of them worked. How to automatically add &raquo; (») to  elements using CSS?