I have questions about many things in MediaWiki. In which site should I post my questions?
I have a question about MediaWiki formatting. Since this is similar to LaTeX questions, I figured it would have a nice, happy home on Stack Overflow. I'm not quite sure if it's programmer related enough though.  What does the community think?
Why is the determinant of a symplectic matrix 1? Suppose $A \in M_{2n}(\mathbb{R})$. and$$J=\begin{pmatrix} 0 &amp; E_n\\   -E_n&amp;0  \end{pmatrix}$$ where $E_n$ represents identity matrix. if $A$ satisfies $$AJA^T=J.$$ How to figure out $$\det(A)=1~?$$ My approach: I have tried to separate $A$ into four submartix:$$A=\begin{pmatrix}A_1&amp;A_2 \\A_3&amp;A_4 \end{pmatrix}$$ and I must add a assumption that $A_1$ is invertible. by elementary transfromation:$$\begin{pmatrix}A_1&amp;A_2 \\ A_3&amp;A_4\end{pmatrix}\rightarrow \begin{pmatrix}A_1&amp;A_2 \\ 0&amp;A_4-A_3A_1^{-1}A_2\end{pmatrix}$$ we have: $$\det(A)=\det(A_1)\det(A_4-A_3A_1^{-1}A_2).$$ From$$\begin{pmatrix}A_1&amp;A_2 \\ A_3&amp;A_4\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}0&amp;E_n \\ -E_n&amp;0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}A_1&amp;A_2 \\ A_3&amp;A_4\end{pmatrix}^T=\begin{pmatrix}0&amp;E_n \\ -E_n&amp;0\end{pmatrix}.$$ we get two equalities:$$A_1A_2^T=A_2A_1^T$$ and $$A_1A_4^T-A_2A_3^T=E_n.$$ then $$\det(A)=\det(A_1(A_4-A_3A_1^{-1}A_2)^T)=\det(A_1A_4^T-A_1A_2^T(A_1^T)^{-1}A_3^T)=\det(A_1A_4^T-A_2A_1^T(A_1^T)^{-1}A_3^T)=\det(E_n)=1,$$ but I have no idea to deal with this problem when $A_1$ is not invertible. Date Formatting C# As an extension to  on equiangular fisheye distortion, how can I calculate equidistant points around an ellipse (or 1/4 segment of) given it's aspect ratio? When it's circular, I can use a simple angle increment around the central point, but as the aspect ratio gets smaller, the length of the arc gets shorter and the angles are no longer equidistant. Why must $\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$ -- the set of all polynomials in $\sqrt{2}$ and $\sqrt{3}$ with rational coefficients  -- contain multiplicative inverses?   I have gathered that every element of $\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$ takes form $a + b\sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{2}\sqrt{3}$ for some $a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{Q}$, and I have shown that $\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}]$ and $\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{3}]$ are both fields, but it's not clear to me why this allows for general multiplicative inverses to exist in $\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}]$. The system cannot find the file specified I have just downloaded WinEdt and written my first code, but it will not run because I keep getting the following error.  I am at a loss as to how to fix this.  Error launching Console Application PDFLaTeX ... Command Line: pdflatex.exe --interaction=errorstopmode --synctex=-1 &quot;practice.tex&quot; Startup Folder: C:\Users\shahand\WinEdt Team\WinEdt 8 The system cannot find the file specified. Define a new block environment in LaTeX beamer I have two kinds of examples in my document. I want to use different colors, say, red and blue. This is what I am doing now.  \documentclass[]{beamer} \usetheme{Madrid} \begin{document}  \begin{frame} \frametitle{Test} \setbeamercolor{block title}{fg=white,bg=red!75!black} \begin{block}{First Kind Example} This is example of the first kind. \end{block} \setbeamercolor{block title}{fg=white,bg=blue!75!black} \begin{block}{Second Kind Example} This is example of the second kind. \end{block} \end{frame}  \end{document}   I know this is kind of stupid. I want to define two new block environments, one for each color, so I don't need to use setbeamercolor every time I use them.   \begin{block1}{First Kind Example} ... \end{block1} \begin{block2}{Second Kind Example} ... \end{block2}   I know I need to define these two new environments in the preamble, but don't know how. Thanks for the help.  By the way, what is a good reference on these kinds of tricks in LaTeX/beamer? Any recommendations? I'm trying to install Wifite from , but I can't install cowpatty.  See below:  root@vitor-hp:~# apt-get install cowpatty Reading package lists ... ready Building dependency tree Reading state information ... ready E: Could not find package cowpatty root@vitor-hp:~#    Translated from Portuguese  I use Ubuntu 13.10 64-bit. Once a post has been edited, you can go into the revision list, and click "View Source".  If a post has not been edited (and I don't have the edit privilege) is there any way to see the raw Markdown?  The reason I ask I because of  - it's impossible to see the source markdown, and how it's different from the rendered Markdown.  Not exactly a huge issue, just curious! Me and some friends were recently disuccing "How cool it would be to be invisible", from a military viewpoint, I said that Camouflage, when done correctly, works surprisingly well, so invisibility was unnecessary. They countered with the argument that an infrared camera could see you easily. Apart from several warm coats, are there any non-restictive ways of preventing IR radiation being emitted from your person? Fire (at, on, in, to) target How to correctly choose the preposition in "fire (at, on, in, to) target"? How to import all files of a folder at once? How to share files through the local network? eGPU Vega 56 (Blackmagic) Mac + cycles problem Hello I just got the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 (blackmagic eGPU Pro) yesterday  plugged it in to my brand new Mac mini (Mojave), it shows up in the menubar and as an alternative as a render engine,. My question is, can I use this eGPU for cycles renders? (Blender 2.80)  Very grateful for your responses. Why doesn't matter pass through other matter if atoms are 99.999% empty space? The ghostly passage of one body through another is obviously out of the question if the continuum assumption were valid, but we know that at the micro, nano, pico levels (and beyond) this is not even remotely the case. My understanding is that the volume of the average atom actually occupied by matter is a vanishingly small fraction of the atom's volume as a whole. If this is the case, why can't matter simply pass through other matter? Are the atom's electrons so nearly omnipresent that they can simultaneously prevent collisions/intersections from all possible directions? Intuition behind logistic regression Recently I began studying machine learning, however I failed to grasp the intuition behind .   The following are the facts about logistic regression that I understand.   As the basis for hypothesis we use . I do understand why it's a correct choice, however why it's the only choice I don't understand. Hypothesis represents the probability that the appropriate output is $1$, therefore the domain of our function should be $[0,1]$, this is the only property of sigmoid function I found useful and appropriate here, however many functions satisfy this property. In addition, sigmoid function has a derivative in this form $f(x)(1-f(x))$, but I don't see the utility of this special form in logistic regression.   Question: what so special about sigmoid function, and why we cannot use any other function with domain $[0,1]$? The cost function consists of two parameters ${\rm Cost}(h_{\theta}(x),y)=-\log(h_{\theta}(x))$ if $y=1, {\rm Cost}(h_{\theta}(x),y)=-\log(1-h_{\theta}(x))$ if $y=0$. In the same was as above, I do understand why it's correct, however why is it the only form? For example, why couldn't $|h_{\theta(x)}-y|$ be a good choice for the cost function?  Question: what is so special about the above form of cost function; why cannot we use another form?   I would appreciate if you could share your understanding of logistic regression. How do you use the Dungeon Defender's Portal Gun? The topic pretty much sums up my question. I have not yet figured out how the gun operates aside from the fact that it creates Portal portals. The weapon description indicates that it deals 250+ base damage, but how is that damage applied to the monsters? Isomorphism between $\Bbb R$ and $\Bbb R(X)$? My questions are:     $1.$ Is there a field morphism $\Bbb R(X) \hookrightarrow \Bbb R$ ?      $2.$ If the answer to $1.$ is "yes", are $\Bbb R$ and $\Bbb R(X)$ isomorphic as fields?   $ $    $ $  For $1.$, here are some comments:   This is true for $\Bbb C$, see . The key point here is the fact that $\Bbb C$ is algebraically closed, of cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$, and of characteristic $0$. The same argument doesn't work for $\Bbb R$. We can actually find a subfield $F$ of $\Bbb R$ such that $F \cong F(X) \cong F(X,Y) \cong \cdots$, see .  that $\Bbb Q(X)$ does not embed in $\Bbb Q$ (as a field).  This is equivalent to: Is there an injective ring morphism $\Bbb R[X] \hookrightarrow \Bbb R$ ? (By taking the fraction fields).   As for 2. :   They are isomorphic as abelian groups, and actually as $\Bbb Q$-vector spaces. They are not isomorphic as $\Bbb R$-algebras, because they haven't the same transcendence degree over $\Bbb R$. Let's try to see how to construct such a field isomorphism. We could try$^{[1]}$ to find a subset $B$ of $\Bbb R$ such that $\Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B)$ and $C \subsetneq B \implies \Bbb R \neq \Bbb Q(C)$.  The set $B$ must contain transcendental elements, pick such an $x_0 \in B$.  Then $\Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B) = \Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\})(x_0)$ and we could try$^{[2]}$ to find a field isomorphism $\Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\}) \cong \Bbb Q(B)$, so that $\Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\})(x_0) \cong \Bbb Q(B)(x_0) \cong \Bbb R(X)$.  For ${[1]}$, I tried to use Zorn's lemma on $\mathscr B = \{B \subset \Bbb R \mid \Bbb R = \Bbb Q(B)\}$ and the partial order $B_1 ≤ B_2 \iff B_1 \supset B_2$. But this is not clear to me why this should be an inductive set.  For ${[2]}$, my idea was to define $f : \Bbb Q(B \setminus \{x_0\}) \cong \Bbb Q(B)$ by choosing a bijection $b : B \setminus \{x_0\} \to B$ (these sets should be uncountable), and then trying to extend $f\vert_{B \setminus \{x_0\}} = b$ to a field morphism.     Edit for $^{[1]}$: in  article (MINIMAL GENERATING SETS OF GROUPS, RINGS, AND FIELDS, by LORENZ HALBEISEN, MARTIN HAMILTON, AND PAVEL RUZICKA) the theorem 2.4. proves that $\Bbb R$ has no minimal generating set as field (or $\Bbb Q$-algebra, i.e. as ring). The argument uses Artin-Schreier theorem. Minimal generating sets of modules are   .  I think that $B$ is a minimal generating set of a subfield $K \subset \Bbb R$ over $\Bbb Q$ if and only if any element of $B$ cannot be written as a rational fraction of other elements of $B$. Under these conditions and using (transfinite) induction, we can probably prove (and this was my first idea) that any function $f: B \to \Bbb C$ such that $b$ and $f(b)$ are conjugate over $\Bbb Q$ (i.e. have the same minimal polynomial) extends to a (unique) field morphism $\sigma : K = \Bbb Q(B) \to \Bbb C$.  Actually, the collection $\mathscr B$ defined above doesn't have to be an inductive set, at least if we replace $\Bbb R$ by $K =\Bbb Q(\sqrt 2, \sqrt[4]{2},\sqrt[8]{2},\dots)$, because the descending chain $\left(E_n = \{\sqrt[2^m]{2} \mid m \geq n\}\right)_{n \geq 1}$ satisfy $K = \Bbb Q(E_n)$, but $K \neq \Bbb Q\left(\bigcap_{n≥1} E_n\right)=\Bbb Q$, so the chain has no upper bound w.r.t. $≤$ in $\mathscr B$. Someone mentioned that "veiling glare" or "veiling flare" was to blame for reduced contrast in a photo. What does this mean exactly?  What causes veiling glare, and how can it be avoided? How does it relate to those floating polygonal lens flares one often sees in movies? List has No Rows for Assignment to SObject: Error Where is the Layers panel in Blender 2.8? I am starting working on Blender 2.8, but I can't find the layer panel. Where is it?