I don't understand why you have to write the absolute value sign when solving for the square root of $x$ squared.   Shouldn't the answer automatically be positive? Why is the absolute value sign needed?
Possible Duplicate:          The square root of a number squared is equal to the absolute value of that number. Why is $\sqrt{x^2} = |x|$? Why not just $x$? Please give me a reason and also help me prove it.
I'm desperatly confused by notations and formulations so if someone could clarify the following things a little Í would be deeply grateful. The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow}$ of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group $SO(1,3)_+^{\uparrow}$ is given by \begin{equation} [J_i,J_j]=i \epsilon_{ijk} J_k \end{equation} \begin{equation} [J_i,K_j]=i \epsilon_{ijk} K_k \end{equation} \begin{equation} [K_i,K_j]=- i \epsilon_{ijk} J_k \end{equation} We can now define new generators with the old ones $N^{\pm}_i= \frac{1}{2}(J_i \pm i K_i)$ which satisfy \begin{equation} [N^{+}_i,N^{+}_j] = i \epsilon_{ijk} N^{+}_k ,\end{equation} \begin{equation} [N^{-}_i,N^{-}_j] = i \epsilon_{ijk} N^{-}_k ,\end{equation} \begin{equation} [N^{+}_i,N^{-}_j] = 0. \end{equation} where we can see that $N^{+}_i$ and $N^{-}_i$ make up a copy of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{su}(2)$ each. My problem is to get what is going one here mathematically precise. Are the following statements correct and if not why:  When we build the new operators from the old generators we complexified $\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow}$ \begin{equation}(\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow})_\mathbb{C} = \mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow}\otimes \mathbb{C} \end{equation} We saw that $\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow})_\mathbb{C}$ is isomorph to two copies of the complexified Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{su(2)}$: $(\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow})_\mathbb{C} \simeq \mathfrak{su(2)}_{\mathbb{C}} \oplus \mathfrak{su(2)}_{\mathbb{C}} $. Where exactly did we need that $\mathfrak{su(2)}$ is complexified here? The Lie algebras defined by $N^{\pm}_i$ are exactly those of $\mathfrak{su(2)}$ and we never use complex linear combination of $N^{\pm}_i$ or am I wrong here? $\mathfrak{su(2)}_{\mathbb{C}}$ is isomorph to $(\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C}$: \begin{equation}\mathfrak{su(2)}_{\mathbb{C}} \simeq (\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C} \end{equation} Here $(\mathfrak{sl}(2, \mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C}$ denotes the complexified Lie algebra of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ Is $(\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow})_\mathbb{C} \simeq (\mathfrak{sl}(2, \mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{R}$ correct?  Here $(\mathfrak{sl}(2, \mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{R}$ denotes the real Lie algebra of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ Is $(\mathfrak{so}(1,3)_+^{\uparrow})_\mathbb{C} \simeq (\mathfrak{sl}(2, \mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C} \oplus (\mathfrak{sl}(2, \mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C}$ correct?  I looked this topic up in different books and each seemed to state something different. One book even used three differrent versions of $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $ namely: $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $, $(\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{C}$ and $(\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}))_\mathbb{R}$.  states simply that $\mathfrak{sl}(2,\mathbb{C}) $ is the complexification of $\mathfrak{su(2)}$ without making any reference to $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ which does not help me either. Any help would be great. How to recover a deleted file from /data partition? I factory reset my rooted Android M phone but now I realize that there was a file in the /data directory which I need.  Is it possible to create an image (.img or something similar) of the /data partition so that I could run some recovery software for ext4 on that image? I have a little knowledge about ADB. Let $(X, \mathcal{T})$ be a metrizable space. Prove that $X$ Lindelöf   implies that $X$ is separable.   My attempt:  Let $d$ be the metric that induces the topology $\mathcal{T}$.   For every $n \geq 1$, consider the open cover: $$\{B_X(x,1/n)\mid x \in X\}$$  Because the space is Lindelöf, this implies that for every $n \geq 1$, there is a countable (or finite) subcover given by $$\mathcal{B}_n:= \{B_X(x,1/n) \mid x \in I_n, |I_n| \leq |\mathbb{N}|\}$$  Now, define $D:= \bigcup_{n\geq 1} I_n$. Let $y \in X$. Let $\epsilon &gt; 0$. Choose $m$ a positive integer so large that $1/m &lt; \epsilon$.  Because $y\in X =\bigcup\mathcal{B}_m$, it follows that there exists $x \in D$ such that $y \in B_X(x,1/m)$, meaning that $d(x,y) &lt; 1/m &lt; \epsilon$, such that $x \in B_X(y, \epsilon) \cap D$. Hence, $y \in \overline{D}$ and it follows that $D$ is a dense countable set in $X$, such that $X$ is separable.  Is this correct? Combine and Minify Multiple CSS / JS Files Negative Mass and gravitation Integrating trigonometric function problem $\int \frac{3\sin x+2\cos x}{2\sin x+3\cos x}dx$ \begin{eqnarray*} \int \frac{3\sin x+2\cos x}{2\sin x+3\cos x}dx &amp;=&amp;  \int \frac{(3\sin x+2\cos x)/\cos x}{(2\sin x+3\cos x)/\cos x}dx\\ \\ &amp;=&amp; \int \frac{3\tan x +2}{2\tan x +3} dx\\ &amp;&amp; u = \tan x \text{ and } du = \sec^2 x \ dx  \end{eqnarray*} Am I going in the right direction with this one? It seems like not. How to contact Canonical? So I am doing a College research project for my Computer Information Systems department and it is about alternative Linux server distribution for small businesses. From my findings I would really like for this research to actually take off into a Distribution project (Using Ubuntu as a base OS).   However I would like to rename the distribution as "Bizbuntu" or something related to that ("Biz" being shorthand for business) however I don't know if I can name the distribution without consent from Canonical.   So my question is do I have to contact Canonical about this, if so, does anyone know a mailing list or email that I can contact them about this? At the end of the game, how are medals awarded?   As a secondary, what is the relation between bronze silver and gold medals, and how much experience do they reward? With the following circuits as examples :    and    How will the current I know how much to flow? Would any other wave travel first in the circuit and then come back and say so much current should flow? Why does $\lim\limits_{t\to-\infty}te^t=0$? Intuitively, $\lim\limits_{t\to -\infty}te^t=0$, since $e^t\to 0$ much faster than $t\to -\infty$.   Is there a way to more rigorously compute this? Writing it as $e^t/(1/t)$ seems resistant to l'Hopital's rule. redirecting openshift rhcloud domain to custom domain for SEO purposes Openshift application url: example.rhcloud.com  Custom domain: example.com  I came across this  and added the redirection rule. However, I can not access example.rhcloud.com now. My custom domain is www.example.com.  To avoid duplicate content problems, I tried this redirection.   Here is my .htaccess file:  RewriteEngine on   # Uncomment the following lines to force HTTPS #RewriteCond %{HTTP:X-Forwarded-Proto} !https  #RewriteRule .* https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [R,L]   # WordPress Defaults RewriteBase / RewriteRule ^index\.php$ - [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d RewriteRule . /index.php [L]  # Redirect Https traffic to Http RewriteEngine on  RewriteCond %{SERVER_PORT} ^443$ [OR] RewriteCond %{HTTPS} on RewriteRule  ^(.*)$ http://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [R=301,L]   # Redirect non-www to www RewriteEngine on  RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www\. [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]    # Redirect openshift rhcloud domain to custom domain RewriteEngine on  RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^example.rhcloud.com$ RewriteRule (.*)$ http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]   Why is example.com not redirecting to ww.example.com? How do I fix this?  Also, I see that since I have https to http redirection and non www to www redirection, my blog has been loading slow. How can I reduce it to lesser number of rules?  Edit:  In chrome:   In Firefox:     The page isn't redirecting properly, Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.     This problem can sometimes be caused by disabling or refusing to accept cookies. Is it possible to make an EXACT ISO of my system to put on other computers? I am new to linux, but had a question. I am getting in the business of buying old computers, putting Linux on them, then donating them to students who don't have their own computer at home. I have gone through and installed Xubuntu on my system, installed/uninstalled all the software that I want/need, and now want to know if there is a way that I could make an ISO of my system, and put it onto ANOTHER computer, and still have all of my tweaks, and programs ready to go after the ISO has installed. That way I don't need to go through and spend an hour or two on every computer.   What programs would you recommend for creating an ISO like this?   Thanks, Tobin In the Harry Potter world, there's the term "muggle" for people with no magical abilities, "muggle-born" for those with magical abilities who's parents are muggles and "squib" for those with no magical abilities who's parents are magical.  But is there any collective term for all magical people (as opposed to wizards for males and witches for females)?  I don't recall seeing any word that refers to all men and women and children with magical abilities, and it's the only group left without noun or collective noun to describe them. Regarding the `book`, `report`, and `article` document classes: what are the main differences? In my D&amp;D 5e campaign one of the PCs who's a wood elf started dating a dark elf, and as a result she got pregnant and she is about to give birth. One of the other players had their PC die and he is considering playing as the child of the couple.  My question is, which race is the child going to be? The link button in the post editor incorrectly escapes square brackets in inline code.  To reproduce:   Write the following MarkDown in the editor  text text `function[]` text text  Select `function[]`, press the link button (), and enter some link the result will be [`function\[\]`][1] which renders as function\[\]   This comes up very often in   when I'm linking to the documentation because the usual way to indicate that a symbol is a function in Mathematica is adding [] after it.  This is a minor thing, as it's easy to manually remove the backslashes, but it's somewhat annoying so I thought I'd mention it.    Edit by Mr.Wizard It is September 2013 and this still hasn't been fixed.  While "adding [] after it" is not presently the custom on Mathematica.SE this is still a bug and still needs to be fixed. Boot partition full, can't remove kernels Wouldn't the thermodynamic cost of creating alternate universes make the Many Worlds interpretation implausible? I was thinking about the many interpretations of quantum physics, and one thing that never made sense to me was the many world's interpretation. Basically at any given moment for which something exists in a superposition, isn't this interpretation basically saying that there would have to exist a new universe for every possible discrete outcome that could result once the measurement is made?   So let's say an electron's location is a superposition of two distinct locations. Doesn't that mean there would at that moment have to be two distinct universes for each distinct location that is superposed? If so, then clearly the amount of universes being spawned every moment must be astronomical.   There could be trillions upon trillions of electrons(for instance) having superposed states, and then every moment in time (I suppose every planck time?), it seems there would have to be yet another set of universes spawning for every superposition.  How could this be? Surely there must be some kind of thermodynamic cost to replicate an entire universe. What would fuel or supply the additional mass and energy for every universe at every moment for every superposed state?  To my lay person's mind, this seems to be a very big weakness of this interpretation, but I needed to ask people with the physics background required to answer this question. Could there be some kind of loophole that could allow alternate universes to spawn so rapidly? Otherwise, doesn't this present a bit of a problem for taking this interpretation seriously? When / how should I ask about a manuscript's status in review? Walking up/down a level road/street Is walking up/down the road/street applicable if the street is not sloped?  I think I heard something about "with/against the numbering of houses" but I'm not sure if it's correct.  Also, if that were correct, why is walking down the street  than walking up the street?