For example, when a river bifurcates into two separate streams of water, and then these two streams rejoin further along to become a single river once more.  Bifurcate itself is not generalized enough for the title purpose because (a) it implies a split into 2 parts, rather than n; and (b) it doesn't suggest anything about rejoining.  Example sentence can be as simple as "the river [term] as it travels along the flat valley", with the meaning as above, though the specific form might vary.  Perhaps branching could provide the n-parts concept, but I'm not sure how to incorporate rejoining in an elegant way.  Perhaps also there is some computer science or mathematical term for this idea, since it seems it might be useful in those fields.
A  is river or stream that flows into a larger river.  A  a stream branching off a river.    Is there a word that combines both structures, the idea of a river that splits in two and later rejoins to become one river again?           /---------------\ ---------                 --------------------          \---------------/   My focus here is on the waterway, not the land. I’m looking for a word describing the behavior of the river splitting and later rejoining, without regard for the geography, and without regard for the cause or effect between land and water.
How do I create a public view from a private view It seems like I can't modify a private view to be public, or duplicate a private view to be public.  Am I restricted to copying by hand all the settings of my private view, then creating a fresh public view and selecting all the right columns in the same order with all the sort and filter options? How to open a PDF form file that says Please wait...? I often see "replace with" and "replace by" used interchangeably, but this doesn't sound right to me:     I replaced that component by this one.   I would use "with" in such a sentence. "By" only seems reasonable in passive, although "with" sounds like it would there work too:     That component was replaced by this one.   That component was replaced with this one.   In my native language, the equivalent of "replace by" can only be used in passive, and even then it's a bit weird unless a person is the object replacing something – perhaps this affects my judgment?  Web searches haven't come up with anything conclusive; the results are contradictory and speculative at best.  Are "replace with" and "replace by" interchangeable in active context? What about passive? Are there stylistic reasons to prefer one over the other? When applying dropout in artificial neural networks, one needs to compensate for the fact that at training time a portion of the neurons were deactivated. To do so, there exist two common strategies:   scaling the activation at test time inverting the dropout during the training phase   The two strategies are summarized in the  below, taken from .  Which strategy is preferable, and why?    Scaling the activation at test time:    Inverting the dropout during the training phase: How do I calculate number of hours > 24 in Excel? I've got an excerpt of my spreadsheet below. It's a time tracking application containing a start date/day, a session ID and the duration of the session. Column A is populated by adding the duration in Column D. I'm trying to total the durations, but keep getting incorrect values in cases where the total duration is > 24 hours.  Consider        A                   B        C                D          1  2012/05/22 01:00  |  Wed  |  Session 23341  |  9:00 2  2012/05/23 10:00  |  Wed  |  Session 23342  | 22:00 3  2012/05/25 08:00  |  Fri  |                 |  0:00   As you can see, the date differential between A2 and A3 demonstrates that the value of 22:00 in D2 represents a duration of 46 hours (05/23 10:00 + 46:00 = 05/25 08:00). However, Column D is only displaying the 22:00 in excess of a full 24 hour day.  My attempts to read D2 have included int(d2) = 0.00  /  int(d2)*24 = 0.00  /  hour(d2) = 22.00  /  int(a3-a2)*24 =0.00 etc. and have been unsuccessful in pulling a value of "46".   How can I accurately represent D2 to achieve accurate summary data? How can I reflect a transparent background? I'd like to make a glossy surface which reflects objects above it, but that also reflects a transparent background in the final render.  So in effect, the final render would contain only the reflections, not the surface itself.  Is this possible please? I created an ext4 partition to back-up my files to, and partitioned it for 102GB in Gparted using a live USB. After I booted into Ubuntu, I opened Disk Utility, and it said that the partition was actually 108GB. Confused, I opened the mounted partition in Nautilus, and it said the partition was only 98GB.  Which is correct? Did I partition it wrong? How do you apply a QgsExpression to a Label ?   I can do it in QGIS with this simple expression  concat('N:' ,round(Value,0),'\n','Yield:' ,round(Value 2,0))  N: 65   Yield: 40  How do I do it in PyQGIS ? I see a getLabelExpression but no setLabelExpression  This works but I want but only for the field name    crap = QgsVectorLayer("D:/data.shp", "data", "ogr")  QgsMapLayerRegistry.instance().addMapLayer(crap)  palyr = QgsPalLayerSettings()  palyr.readFromLayer(crap)  palyr.enabled = True  palyr.fieldName = 'Name'  palyr.placement= QgsPalLayerSettings.OverPoint  palyr.setDataDefinedProperty(QgsPalLayerSettings.Size,True,True,'8','')  palyr.writeToLayer(crap) How can I create light trails without a blurry subject? FTP File Upload with HTTP Proxy Is there a way to upload a file to a FTP server when behind an HTTP proxy ?  It seems that uploading a file is not supported behind an HTTP Proxy using .Net Webclient. ().  If there is no workaround ? If not, do you know a good and free FTP library I can use ?  Edit: Unfortunately, I don't have any FTP proxy to connect to. Proof of $1+x\leq e^x$ for all x? Is it possible to accept the alternative hypothesis? I'm aware of several related questions here (e.g., , ) but I don't know the definitive answer for my question below.  Suppose a hypothesis test where we want to test whether a coin is fair or not. We have two hypotheses:  $H_0: p(head)=0.5$  $H_1: p(head)\neq0.5$  Suppose we use 5% significance level, there are two possible cases:   When we obtain the data and find that the p-value is less than 0.05, we say "With significance level 5%, we reject $H_0$."  p-value is greater than 0.05, then we say "With 5% significance level, we cannot reject $H_0$."   My question is:      In case 1, is it correct to say "we accept $H_1$"?   Intuitively, and from what I have learned in the past, I feel that "accepting" anything as a result of hypothesis testing is always incorrect. On the other hand, in this case, since the union on $H_0$ of $H_1$ covers the whole "space", "reject $H_0$" and "accepting $H_1$" look exactly the same to me. On another thought, I can also think of the following idea, which says it is incorrect to say "we accept $H_1$":     We have an evidence strong enough to believe that $H_0$ is not true, but we may not have an evidence strong enough to believe that $H_1$ is true. Therefore, "rejecting $H_0$" does not automatically imply "accepting $H_1$"   So, what is the right answer? Photoshop CS6 Resize Rectangle with Rounded Corners This question is about Photoshop CS6. Hopefully the feature was added in this version. Before posting I looked up Google and  and  but didn't find an answer for CS6.  So the question is: Is there a feature within CS6 or a script that allows to resize a vector element with rounded corners without using the Direct Selection Tool (white arrow tool) and not changing the border radius? What would be great would be something like simply using the transform tool or something like a grid resize tool. There was a book (it actually had a second book as well) where a guy gets paid with a group of others to go to a planet that is enclosed in a metallic sphere.   There are many species in this planet. I don't recall if they actually met the races in the first or the second book but there an incident where an alien in the first book ate fruit from a tree that removed any signs of gender from it. In JavaScript can I make a "click" event fire programmatically for a file input element? I've been going through Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. In the section of the system of identical particles, he uses an example of billiards to illustrate the difference between identical particles in classical vs. quantum mechanics. He argues that in classical mechanics, we can track the history of a particle (a billiard ball) to distinguish it from another particle with no intrinsic differences. In quantum mechanics, however, he argues since continual observation is not possible, we can't use the same method to distinguish identical particles. A potential counter-example I thought was: suppose we have two non-interacting particles in the same square well. And at the end of some measurement, we find that one particle 1 is in a stationary state $\psi_1$, and particle 2 in $\psi_2$. We measure the system again after some time $t$, then we know whichever particle that's in $\psi_1$ must be particle 1 from the previous measurement. And the same goes for particle 2. Thus we can distinguish the two &quot;identical&quot; particles. What conceptual mistakes am I making here? How to add an edge ring around a hole What is the easiest way to add/extrude an edge loop around the hole in the first image to make it like the second image? Unknown site on Android app When I select the unknown site (i.e. the meta sites) the app crashes.   I have a Samsung Note 5 and version 1.0.89 of the app. Is Einstein's Special Relativity completely inclusive of Newton's 3 laws of motion? Relativity has always been explained to me (in books I've read, etc) as a superset of newton's laws - that is; it encapsulates all of Newton's mechanics in addition to other effects (observer effect, time dilation, space-time geometry, etc).   I can kind of imagine 2 of Newton's 3 laws of motion to be incapsulated within Einstein's Special Relativity, but the one about "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction", I'm struggling to find a place for that within Special Relativity.   Does this sit outside Special Relativity's explanatory power or is it inferred within somehow? $(n+1)$th prime $p_{n+1}$ less than or equal to $p_1p_2\dots p_n+1$