I do not mean that I deserved a Kofia hat, but today I asked and answered questions, all of which have at least one upvote.  Are there another requirement for the hat?     Kofia           first post between 12/26 and 1/1
first post between 12/26 and 1/1   Does that mean your very first post as a user should be made in those days?  Or that you should be the first user to post any post on a site starting 12/26?  Or something else?  The first option seems somewhat more likely but I'm not sure I'm parsing the description right.
How To: Execute command line in C#, get STD OUT results Is it possible to make a sequence of renders and give the user the option to cancel the process through the UI at any given time? I'm trying to make a script where I have to render several images of the same scene at the same frame, and write to disk with appropriate names. The problem is that although this works fine with a non-responsive UI, it doesn't work well when the render progress appears in the Blender UI.  I mean,  bpy.ops.render.render()   uses "EXEC_DEFAULT" when called from a script. This leaves a blocked User Interface until the render finishes, meaning that you can't cancel the process, except by killing Blender. The problem is that the render may be too big in resolution, and the user could want to stop the process when realizing that the render could take hours, so the idea is to cancel this process without losing the currently opened project.  If I call,  bpy.ops.render.render("INVOKE_DEFAULT")   I get a nice preview bar in the Info Window with a clickable "X" button. I want the user to be able to press that button to cancel the operation if needed, but for a series of renders (not animation).  The problem here seems to be when trying to loop this command with the INVOKE_DEFAULT context to write several renders. I made a lot of testing, and this way of calling the render operator seems to continue with whatever is next in the script, so it loops very fast and ends before the rendering actually finishes.  I think that I need some way to stop the script and make it wait until render finishes to continue looping with the next ones. I tried the "render_complete" and "render_cancel" handlers, but I can't use them to start a new render or even make the rest of the script wait until the loop of renders is complete. I tried threading and events without success either. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.  import bpy  render = bpy.context.scene.render path = render.filepath = "/tmp/" shots = ["one", "two", "three"]  for x in shots:     render.filepath = path + x     bpy.ops.render.render("INVOKE_DEFAULT", write_still=True) # this doesn't work      # but if I use:     # bpy.ops.render.render(write_still=True)     # without the INVOKE thing, images are written as expected,     # but losing the possibility to see the progress and cancel rendering Limits involving factorials $\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{N!}{(N-k)!N^{k}}$ I am trying to calculate the following limit  $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{N!}{(N-k)!N^{k}}$$ where $k$ can be any number between $0$ and $N$.  I thought of the following:  If I take the logarithm of the expression then I get:  $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \left(\log(N!)-\log((N-k)!)-k\log N\right)$$    Using the Stirling formula this can be approximated as:  $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \left(N\log(N)-(N-k)\log(N-k)-k\log N\right)$$  Now there are two cases: If $k$ is $N$, then the second term vanishes and the remaining terms cancel. If $k$ is smaller than $N$, then I can drop the $k$ inside the second logarithm and all the terms cancel. So the limit $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \log\left(\frac{N!}{(N-k)!N^{k}}\right)=0$$ Which means that: $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{N!}{(N-k)!N^{k}}=1$$ I don't know if this is mathematically rigorous. Would like some help. Thanks Does Quicksilver's walkman speed up with him? Why is ${x^{\frac{1}{2}}}$ the same as $\sqrt x $?   I'm currently studying indices/exponents, and this is a law that I was told to accept without much proof or explanation, could someone explain the reasoning behind this.  Thank you. Block computer from joining a domain if it has the same name as another computer object in ADUC Is there an equivalent in mathematical language to the modulo (or mod) function in computing? Minimal cut edges number in connected Eulerian graph. I have to prove that Connected graph is Eulerian Graph if and only if the number of edges in minimal cut is even.  Implication from left to right. Well if $G$ is Eulerian Graph then degree of each vertex must be even. It's oblivious if i try to disconnect graph by removing all edges connected to the vertex with minimal degree. But minimal cut can be done also by dividing graph into 2 connected graphs (each graph with more then one vertex) and i have no idea how to deal with it.  Implication from right to left - completly no idea. $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous such that $f(f(f(x)))=x,\forall x \in \mathbb R$ , is $f(x)=x , \forall x \in \mathbb R$? Let $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ be a continuous function such that $f(f(f(x)))=x,\forall x \in \mathbb R$ , then is it true that $f(x)=x , \forall x \in \mathbb R$ ? I can see that $f$ is bijective , hence strictly monotone . But I cannot progress further . Please help. Thanks in advance It started happening today... all of a sudden, no apparent reason!  Here's the output from df:   assp:~# df -k Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs             6291456   1378384   4913072  22% / tmpfs                  8202680         0   8202680   0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs                  8202680         0   8202680   0% /dev/shm  assp:~# df -i Filesystem            Inodes   IUsed   IFree IUse% Mounted on /dev/simfs           55781934   83005 55698929    1% / tmpfs                2050670       2 2050668    1% /lib/init/rw tmpfs                2050670       1 2050669    1% /dev/shm  assp:~# df -h Filesystem            Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/simfs            6.0G  1.4G  4.7G  22% / tmpfs                 7.9G     0  7.9G   0% /lib/init/rw tmpfs                 7.9G     0  7.9G   0% /dev/shm   Here's an actual entry from /var/log/mail.warn:   Dec 11 17:55:37 assp postfix/smtpd[30614]: warning: not enough free space in mail queue: 0 bytes &lt; 1.5*message size limit Dec 11 17:55:37 assp postfix/cleanup[30617]: warning: 4361D850D54: write queue file: No space left on device   . How to transform negative values to logarithms? I would like to know how to transform negative values to Log(), since I have heteroskedastic data. I read that it works with the formula Log(x+1) but this doesn't work with my database and I continue getting NaNs as result. E.g. I get this Warning message (I didn't put my complete database because I think with one of my negative values is enough to show an example):   &gt; log(-1.27+1) [1] NaN Warning message: In log(-1.27 + 1) : NaNs produced &gt;    Thanks in advance  UPDATE:  Here is an histogram of my data. I'm working with palaeontological time series of chemical measurements, E.g the difference between variables like Ca and Zn is too big, then I need some type of data standardization, that is why I'm testing the log() function.   This is my When I went to the review overview on Meta on 08.01.2015, 19:16, it listed two open items in the suggested-edits queue, however when I clicked on the queue, I was told that the queue had been cleared. When I went back to the review overview, however, the edits were there again.  Since the icons for recent reviews had not moved, I suppose that these were still the same two items waiting for review, and since phenomenon lasted for half an hour now, I would rule out  or  to be the reason for this.  After a while, the phenomenon ceased, with one new reviewer popping up in the icon list of recent reviewers.  I had not performed or skipped any suggested-edit review from the queue at that point.    A similar phenomenon occurred for several hours up to 11.04.2015, 11:05: The review overview showed two suggested edits and when I went to the suggested-edits queue, it was cleared. Sometimes, edits that I could review appeared, but two phantom edits remained. Git is automatically merging changes from a different branch to master Appropriate statistical analysis to use How should artwork be setup for T-shirt printing? What does it mean to colour separate the artwork for T-Shirt printing? It is normally suggested to use Pantone colours for T-Shirt printing. Is it the Pantone Coated or the Pantone Uncoated? The Uncoated one has more subtle colours and we can't choose brighter shades if the design requires that. What is more appropriate for printing? Can we use gradients in T-Shirt printing or is it suggested to stick to flat colours only?   The reason for asking if gradients were ok was to use it as an option for this design:    I was considering it an option, as it will be difficult to colour separate since the textures are clip masked inside the lion. Explanation behind Second Derivative of a Parametric Equation Formula google search index what is fresh content I read that sites have good reputation in google search index if it is fresh content.  what does fresh content means from google's point of view?  I have many pages. I have created articles and tutorials.  These page dosent change except the comments which are at the bottom.  I have made this page as static (.html) and never edit cause that is the information i wanted to be ever. cause the concept is not going to change?  with these parameters how to judge whether my page is fresh or not? How can I restrict a user on the SSH server to allow them only the privileges for ? i.e. So they cannot run commands even if they log in via SSH.  My Linux servers are Ubuntu 11.04 and OpenWrt. How to find web hosting that meets my requirements? How to avoid perceived circularity when defining a formal language? Suppose we want to define a first-order language to do set theory (so we can formalize mathematics). One such construction can be found . What makes me uneasy about this definition is that words such as "set", "countable", "function", and "number" are used in somewhat non-trivial manners. For instance, behind the word "countable" rests an immense amount of mathematical knowledge: one needs the notion of a bijection, which requires functions and sets. One also needs the set of natural numbers (or something with equal cardinality), in order to say that countable sets have a bijection with the set of natural numbers.  Also, in set theory one uses the relation of belonging "$\in$". But relation seems to require the notion an ordered pair, which requires sets, whose properties are described using belonging...  I found the following in Kevin Klement's,  (pages 2-3).  "You have to use logic to study logic. There’s no getting away from it. However, I’m not going to bother stating all the logical rules that are valid in the metalanguage, since I’d need to do that in the metametalanguage, and that would just get me started on an infinite regress. The rule of thumb is: if it’s OK in the object language, it’s OK in the metalanguage too."  So it seems that, if one proves a fact about the object language, then one can also use it in the metalanguage. In the case of set theory, one may not start out knowing what sets really are, but after one proves some fact about them (e.g., that there are uncountable sets) then one implicitly "adds" this fact also to the metalanguage.  This seems like cheating: one is using the object language to conduct proofs regarding the metalanguage, when it should strictly be the other way round.  To give an example of avoiding circularity, consider the definition of the integers. We can define a binary relation $R\subseteq(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})\times(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})$, where for any $a,b,c,d\in\mathbf{N}$, $((a,b),(c,d))\in R$ iff $a+d=b+c$, and then defining $\mathbf{Z}:= \{[(a,b)]:a,b\in\mathbf{N}\}$, where $[a,b]=\{x\in \mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N}: xR(a,b)\}$, as in  question or  on Wikipedia. In this definition if set theory and natural numbers are assumed, then there is no circularity because one did not depend on the notion of "subtraction" in defining the integers.  So my question is:     Question Is the definition of first-order logic circular?   If not, please explain why.   If the definitions are circular, is there an alternative definition which avoids the circularity?   Some thoughts:   Perhaps there is the distinction between what sets are (anything that obeys the axioms) and how sets are expressed (using a formal language). In other words, the notion of a set may not be circular, but to talk of sets using a formal language requires the notion of a set in a metalanguage. In foundational mathematics there also seems to be the idea of first defining something, and then coming back with better machinery to analyse that thing. For instance, one can define the natural numbers using the Peano axioms, then later come back to say that all structures satisfying the axioms are isomorphic. (I don't know any algebra, but that seems right.) Maybe sets, functions, etc., are too basic? Is it possible to avoid these terms when defining a formal language?