Question edit problem when I am only editing tags Recently I tried to add a tag for a question, but it gave the error  Edits must be at least 6 characters; is there something else to improve in this post?  Personal opinion: I think it’s not necessary to add at least six characters to improve a post when I add a missing tag for a question... Edit Problem Picture  Edit Question
I was trying to suggest a retag of  on Seasoned Advice, but the system won't let me; I get the familiar message     Edits must be at least 6 characters; is there something else to improve in this post?   In general, that's not true for retagging; if you don't change the question body at all, it should work. I suspect the logic checking the edit is thrown off guard because of the title warning:     The question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed       I found , but I cannot find any evidence (in SEDE) for invisible characters being present in the question's source. Also, that's supposed to be .
Whoever or whomever: 'happy for ___ has the pleasure of working with you next.' So sad to lose you, yet happy for whomever has the pleasure of working with you next. "'void' type not allowed here" error (Java) Rationalize   $\dfrac{1}{\sqrt[3]{p^2}+\sqrt[3]{pq}+\sqrt[3]{q^2}}.$  How would I go about doing this without wading through lots of algebra?  Is there a trick similar to how you can multiply by $\dfrac{\sqrt a-\sqrt b}{\sqrt a-\sqrt b}$ with square roots?  Thanks in advance! When discussing a treaty or international agreement, which is correct?  "There are 100 states party to the treaty." (for example, as used )  Or:  "There are 100 state parties to the treaty." (for example, as used )   Or: "There are 100 states parties to the treaty."  (for example, as used ) Where does Google Chrome automatically save pages? Converting from 7-speed to 10-speed rear wheel My Bridgestone MB-5 currently has a 7-speed rear wheel. I'd like to convert it to a 10-speed. Is this possible? Is it practical? How to use triangle inequality to establish Reverse triangle inequality I need to use $|a+b| \leq |a|+|b|$ to show that $||a|-|b|| \leq |a-b|$ .   I have tried to represent  $||a|-|b||$ as  $||a|+(-|b|)|$ , and then get $||a|+(-|b|)| \leq |a|+|-|b||$ , but that isn't leading me anywhere given $|a-b| \leq |a|+|b|$. Proof of "well-founded iff there is no sequence $x_n$ s.t. $(x_{n+1}, x_n) \in R$" I tried to do the following exercise from a book I'm reading, can you tell me if my solution is correct? Thanks!  Theorem 2: Let $R$ be a binary relation on a set $X$. Then $R$ is strictly well-founded iff there is no sequence $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ of elements of $X$ such that $(x_{n+1}, x_n) \in R$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$.  Exercise:  (i) Formulate an analogue of Theorem 2 for  well-founded relations.   (ii) Prove Theorem 2.    (i) Theorem 2': Let $R$ be a binary relation on a set $X$. Then $R$ is well-founded iff there is no sequence $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb N}$ of elements of $X$ such that $(x_{n+1}, x_n) \in R$ and $x_n \neq x_{n+1}$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$.  (ii)   $\implies$: Assume there is a sequence $x_n$ with $(x_{n+1},x_n) \in R$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$. Then the set $Y = \{x_n \mid n \in \mathbb N\}$ and hence $R$ is not well-founded since for every element $x_n$ there is $x_{n+1} \in Y$ with $(x_{n+1},x_n) \in R$.  $\Longleftarrow$: Let $R$ be strictly well-founded. Assume we have a sequence $x_n$ with $(x_{n+1},x_n) \in R$ for all $n \in \mathbb N$. Then by the same argument as above $R$ is not well-founded, hence there cannot be such a sequence.   I must be missing something but I can't seem to figure out what. Simplest code for array intersection in javascript Prove that the sum of digits of $(999...9)^{3}$ (cube of integer with $n$ digits $9$) is $18n$ Someone had posted a question on this site as to what would be sum of digits of $999999999999^3$ (twelve $9s$ ) equal to?   I did some computation and found the pattern that sum of digits of  $9^3 = 18$,  $99^3 = 36$,  $999^3 = 54$ and so on. So, I had replied that sum of digits of  $999999999999^3 = 12 \cdot 18 = 216$.  Can anybody help me prove this, that sum of digits of  $(\underbrace{999\dots9}_{n\text{ times}})^3 = 18n.$ Plot x=3 in PGFPlots Should I round my uncertainty to nearest hundred? I was doing some exercises on error propagation when I came across this problem:  $4\pi^2/(0,034 \pm 0,004 \space s^2/cm)$  I calculated my uncertainty to be $\Delta$ = 136 $cm/s^2$  And so the hole thing gives me: $(1200 \pm 136) \space cm/s^2$.  Now going into my question I rounded $4\pi^2/0,034 = 1161.12993$ to $1200$ which makes sense since my uncertainty is 136 but in the solution to this problem $136$ is rounded to $100$ and that's not making much sense to me.  So should I always round my uncertainty to the nearest hundred (assuming my uncertainty has 3 digits)? BOOLEAN FUNCTIONS: generate a function $f: \{0, 1\}^n \rightarrow \{0, 1\}$ from a $n \times n$ S-Box I want to calculate the hamming weight of a S-Box using this formula: $\text{hw}(f) = \sum_{x=0}^{2^n-1} f(x)$. Where $f: \{0, 1\}^n \rightarrow \{0, 1\}$  My problem is that I don't know how to get the $f$-function.  I found that helpful paper: . At Page 9 (18) boolean functions are described. But she only prints the truth table (Table 2.1) without describing her $f$-function. She only says $f$ is a linear function, therefore I think $f$ depends on my S-Box?  For example, if I have this $2 \times 2$ S-Box:  0    1    2    3  1    3    0    2    $00 \rightarrow 01\\ 01  \rightarrow 11\\ 10  \rightarrow 00\\ 11  \rightarrow 10$  What are the $f$-functions and what is the hamming weight? Are human bodies programmed to die? Following from this question: :  Is there any evidence that human bodies have systemic self-destruction built into their developmental program? I'm not talking about the cell death response, which I know is an important part of growth, development and cancer prevention.  I've read some things about telomere-shortening but don't know if this is a cause or an effect. velocity of an object after leaving a ramp pattern of moving electrons in wire under AC How can I run an external program from C and parse its output? I've got a utility that outputs a list of files required by a game.  How can I run that utility within a C program and grab its output so I can act on it within the same program? UPDATE: Good call on the lack of information.  The utility spits out a series of strings, and this is supposed to be portable across Mac/Windows/Linux.  Please note, I'm looking for a programmatic way to execute the utility and retain its output (which goes to stdout). What special characters must be escaped in regular expressions? Disk space not freed up after deleting files and emptying Trash Is there a well-known term for the synonym or near-synonym "telescoping" words? This has been rattling around in the back of my mind for many years (way before Stack Exchange came into existence), so it's a relief to finally ask the question.  There are words that can be "contracted" by removing one or more letter(s) (without changing the order of the letters) to form a shorter word with the same meaning, or one very close to it.  The two strongest examples I can think of right now are:  rapscallion -> rascal  and  satiate -> sate  This is a slightly weaker example:  rapine -> rape  Even though "rape" has come, in modern usage, to refer almost exclusively to a sexual crime, it can still be used in a more literary (and purposefully anachronistic) sense to mean "the plunder and pillage of a country or region". In that sense, "rape" can be used in a similar fashion to "rapine"; in any case, the two words are etymologically related to the Latin rapere which is tied to the archaic usage.  Another weaker example:  transliterate -> translate  These words are near-synonyms, but there is a definite difference in their meaning. Still, I guess this pair would qualify, albeit in a looser sense.  I wanted to exclude some relatively trivial examples, such as:  (inflammable -> flammable)  (perambulate -> ambulate)  and so forth. So I've imposed the additional rule (arbitrary though it may seem) that the "stripped" letters must not come from the start or the end of the word, but only from its middle.  Acronyms and portmanteaus are also excluded, as are "slangier" contractions e.g.:  (modulator-demodulator -> modem)  (motor-hotel -> motel)  (certitude or certainty or certificate -> cert)  I guess the long-short forms of the same word would form a linguistic doublet. I've coined the term "telescoping word" to describe the long form that "collapses" into the short form with letter deletion sans anagramming.  My question is: has this phenomenon already been studied? If so, what name have authorities given it? Is there already an existing reference or resource on it? Thanks in advance.  (This is not a duplicate of , as that is asking about the more general phenomenon of words (not necessarily synonyms) occurring within larger words. In fact, the question specifically mentions "kangaroo word" and states that a broader scope is being sought.)