Is “to” in the following examples a preposition, or does it act as part of the verb (to obtain, to sign, to complete)? Many thanks!  ▻ I finally managed to obtain a copy of the report. ▻ Both governments have agreed to sign the treaty. ▻ You're allowed half an hour to complete the test.
If you're interested in grammar, as I am, I am sure you have delved into a thought process about infinitive to, and like me, you have probably questioned what it is, or what it could be defined as. My mind always wants to place it in the Eight Parts of Speech, and I know this is foolish of me to some regard, so I stray from it, but I still wish to designate it under something that can be explain it. So, this is the motivation for this post, this question: What is the infinitive to, and why?  Here are my thoughts: There are three real possibilities, going back through the times. First, we can say that it is part of the verb that comes after it (to go, to run, etc.). This could be supported by the claim that you are not supposed to "split" infinitives ("To boldly go"), but only that.   Secondly, we could consider it a subordinator. I came across this designation most recently in my studies of modern and transformational grammar. As of right now, it is still the one I accept, especially as a result of the trend of designating more phrases as clauses. It works, except it's weird. Do we call this a unique subordinator as a result of how it operates? For example, to-infinitive clauses call for non-finite verb forms, which typically have an implied subject as a part of their clause. For example, "I want to go to the store." In the infinitive clause, "I" is the implied subject, as a understand. So, again, this works. However, things get a little weird when other subordinators come into play. For example, "I'm excited for you to win the competition." Now, if I'm right, those of you will say that "for" is a preposition here, as a result of the new-grammar stuff, but I'm going to count it as a subordinator, as defined by my own beliefs and that of a lot of other grammars. So, how do the clauses work in such a sentence? According to transformational grammar, "for you to win the competition" is defined as an ordinary clause. So, does that mean that it also contains a secondary clause within itself (the infinitive clause part)? If so, how do those two clauses work in conjunction to each other when one is so integrated? "For you to win the competition" looks to just be one clause, but if that's the case, doesn't "to" have to represent something else?  This moves us on to the third way to look at things, which is to consider "to" as auxiliary verb, a defective one at that. There are a lot of things to support this, and it even allows for the split infinitive. Furthermore, it calls for a non-finite verb form to follow, like an auxiliary. But, as I said before, it's defective in the way that is all it can function as.  As I said, I still accept to as a subordinator, but I want to be proven wrong or right. Wrong by showing evidence of it being something else, or right by showing how clauses operate when it seems to be layered up.
Why are NginX and Lighttpd not affected by Slowloris? I am investigating the vulnerability to  and I think I understand how and why this sort of attack works.  What I don't understand is why Lighttpd and NginX are not affected (according to the same article as linked above). What do they make so different? How do you get the caret position in a &lt;textarea&gt; using JavaScript?  For example: This is| a text  This should return 7.  How would you get it to return the strings surrounding the cursor / selection?  E.g.: 'This is', '', ' a text'.  If the word “is” is highlighted, then it would return 'This ', 'is', ' a text'. So, I'm working on a control station that has buttons. It is a one-mesh creation, that means, I don't want to create buttons and things like that separated from the main mesh, but as you can see, I have problems. I would like to make the highlighted parts to be one with the main part around them. I've tried everything, and I have this problem on multiple creations. Any idea?  Update: I've added another example of the problem. I want them to be one face, instead of two. (2nd picture) Is there no electric field inside a conductor? I came across this statement while studying electric currents and I am confused:  "There is no electric field inside a conductor. Hence no current can flow through it".  Is there a fallacy in this statement?  Any help would be appreciated.  The conductor being discussed is ideal. What is the driving force for the current in this case? Can I travel to the UK on different dates from those on my entry clearance? I have a "Standard Visitor Entry Clearance" for the UK and will be traveling there from Saudi Arabia.    Is it necessary to travel on the same date I provided on my application?  Will the Immigration Officer check?  Will it make problems if I travel on a different date? The probability that an initial quantum state $|\psi_i\rangle$ becomes the final quantum state $|\psi_f\rangle$ is given by  \begin{eqnarray} P(i \rightarrow f) &amp;=&amp; |\langle\psi_f|\psi_i\rangle|^2 \tag{1}\\ &amp;=&amp; \langle\psi_f|\psi_i\rangle^*\langle\psi_f|\psi_i\rangle \\ &amp;=&amp; \langle\psi_i|\psi_f\rangle\langle\psi_f|\psi_i\rangle. \end{eqnarray}  Equation (1) seems to show that the probability for the transition ($i\rightarrow f$) can be interpreted as the system both moving forward in time ($i\rightarrow f$) with amplitude $\langle\psi_f|\psi_i\rangle$ and backward in time ($f\rightarrow i$) with amplitude $\langle\psi_i|\psi_f\rangle$ simultaneously.  Does this reasoning help to explain the Born rule? (Is it like the Transactional Interpretation of QM?)  I guess we must experience the macroscopic direction of time ($i\rightarrow f$) in accord with increasing entropy in an expanding universe whereas microscopically QM works both forwards and backwards in time.  Addition  This is an improved version of the argument including time-evolution operators.  The probability that an initial quantum state $|\psi_i\rangle$ evolves to become the final quantum state $|\psi_f\rangle$ is given by  \begin{eqnarray} P_{i \rightarrow f} &amp;=&amp; |\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle|^2 \tag{2}\\ &amp;=&amp; \langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle^*\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle \\ &amp;=&amp; \langle\psi_i|U^\dagger_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_f\rangle\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle \\ &amp;=&amp; \langle\psi_i|U_{f \rightarrow i}|\psi_f\rangle\langle\psi_f|U_{i \rightarrow f}|\psi_i\rangle \end{eqnarray} where $U_{i \rightarrow f}$ is the forward-time evolution operator and $U_{f \rightarrow i}=U^\dagger_{i \rightarrow f}$ is the corresponding backward-time evolution operator.  Equation (2) seems to show that the probability $P_{i\rightarrow j}$ can be interpreted as the system first evolving forwards in time and then evolving backwards in time.  Perhaps this is an example of Murray Gell-Mann's  that "Everything not forbidden is compulsory"? At the quantum level, below observable probabilities, there is nothing to stop time flowing both forwards and backwards. How can I understand and prove the "sum and difference formulas" in trigonometry? Upper bound and lower bound of an integral I have this problem and I don't know where to start. Can you give me some hint, please?  Suppose that $f:[a,b]\to [0,\infty]$ is a lebesgue integrable function. Let $B=\int_a^b fd\mu.$ Prove that $\sqrt{1+B^2}\leq \int_a^b\sqrt{1+f^2}d\mu\leq 1+B$. Next month I am traveling to country X, where I would need Y minutes of calls, Z text messages and most importantly Q megabytes of data. How can I find the cheapest/most reliable SIM card for my needs? Calling a function in main Assume $x \in \mathbb{R}$ and $(x + \frac{1}{x}) \in \mathbb{Z}$.   Use Induction to prove that for all $n \in \mathbb{N},~ (x^n + \frac{1}{x^n}) \in \mathbb{Z}$.  I'm not sure how to use the information given to prove the induction step. What I have so far is.  $P(n) : (x^n + \frac{1}{x^n}) \in \mathbb{Z}$  Base Case Then $(x^0 + \frac{1}{x^0}) = 2 \in \mathbb{Z}$  Induction Hypothesis: $x^k + \frac{1}{x^k}\in \mathbb{Z}$  Want to prove: $x^{k+1} + \frac{1}{x^{k+1}} \in \mathbb{Z}$  My first step was  $x^{k+1} + \frac{1}{x^{k+1}} = x \cdot x^k + \frac{1}{x} \cdot \frac{1}{x^k}$ Some kind of + (singular or plural)? I have a question about using the phrase "some kind of _".  Is it incorrect to say "some kind of + plural noun"?     For example, is it wrong to say "are these rock-like things some kind of chocolates?"   I didn't use "kinds" and that kind of adds to my question. Is "kind" always plural, like "some kinds of chocolates"? Because although I'm using "some", it feels like "kind" shouldn't be a countable noun.  Anyway, I don't think I've heard of "some kind of + plural", but I think it makes more sense then using singular, since I think chocolates are countable. Please help! Hisoka hinted that Gon is his treasure and also his prey, but it can't be both, right? Because in the end, he didn't want Gon to die no matter what.  So it's weird that he didn't want Gon to die but also made him his prey to fight till death. Is it sexual for Hisoka or what? I still remember the 'Schwing' thing. How to access the system tray using the keyboard? Is there a way I can access the system tray items using the keyboard in Windows XP? Retagging questions in terms of possible answer technologies When entering the title of this query I was pointed to , which has tentatively endorsed this concept, especially once an answer has been accepted.  Can I get a confirmation that it is actually good practice before an answer has been accepted? (IMHO it is not.)  Two examples:   : I didn't need a WCF answer, which I would have assumed if I had seen the question tagged with WCF even if I didn't mention it in the question or title.   : It looks probable that the answer (if there is one) is related to AOP, but the questioner does not require it. Extracting the function from InterpolatingFunction object I understand that the  is given by  $$F^{\mu\nu}\mapsto\begin{pmatrix}0 &amp; -E_{x} &amp; -E_{y} &amp; -E_{z}\\ E_{x} &amp; 0 &amp; -B_{z} &amp; B_{y}\\ E_{y} &amp; B_{z} &amp; 0 &amp; -B_{x}\\ E_{z} &amp; -B_{y} &amp; B_{x} &amp; 0 \end{pmatrix}$$  where $\mu$, $\nu$ can take the values {0,1,2,3} or {$t,x,y,z$}.  So, for example  $$F^{01}=F^{tx}=-E_x$$  My question is, what would the following expression be?  $$F^{t\rho}=?$$ or $$F^{z\rho}=?$$  where $\rho=\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}$ is the radial coordinate in ?  And more generally, how can we construct the Electromagnetic Tensor in cylindrical coordinates? Where $\mu$, $\nu$ now take the values {$t,\rho,\varphi,z$}. How do I upgrade from 14.04 LTS to 16.04.1 LTS? PrintWriter append method not appending This is a  about Active Directory domain naming.   After experimenting with Windows domains and domain controllers in a virtual environment, I've realized that having an active directory domain named identically to a DNS domain is bad idea (Meaning that having example.com as an Active Directory name is no good when we have the example.com domain name registered for use as our website).   , but I'm still not sure about what other rules there are around naming Active Directory domains.  Are there any best practices on what an Active Directory name should or shouldn't be?