I am writing some code on a minor project for the fourier transform, and I've noticed that this inequality is true, I've also ran across this in textbooks, like Big Rudin, when describing the differentiation property of the fourier transform. However, I can't seem to prove it algebraically even though it makes perfect sense geometrically!  In other words, drawing the circle $e^{ixs}$ and the triangle that is described by the modulus of a complex number, the real and the imaginary lines, this inequality makes sense. But it is proving a bit tricky to show formally.  Of course, all I really need is $|e^{-ixs}-1|\leq |xs|$.  Since then I would have $|\frac{e^{-ixs}-1}{s}|\leq \frac{|xs|}{|s|}=|x|$,  but I don't see it. Any help is appreciated, I'm really curious about this one.
We have been using this result without proof in my class, but I don't know how to prove it. Could someone point me in the right direction?  $$|1-e^{i\theta}|\le|\theta|$$  I believe this is true for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$. It is easy to show that the left side is bounded by 2 (triangle inequality), but I'm stuck otherwise.
Every time i publish a new post i want to display an icon like a badge (NEW) and after a specific time it will disappear.  Lets say i publish a new post and i want to display that it is a new post. So i want to insert an icon that for example a star, in each new post in the blog list view into the metadata of the posts. Also i want to be removed after a specific time will pass. Lets say in one day or 24 hours the icon should be removed automatically.  How can i do this? What is mathematical existence? Bogus float inequality due to compiler optimization? What sources of randomness can be made with commands in Minecraft? I want to make a mini game in Minecraft were I need a random command generator for 9 commands. I need a random command to give the player a random item. I can't do the command block in the dispenser any more because it will just drop out instead of being placed. What different ways are there for generating randomness in commands, and which one would be best for my use? This question is similar to the one about , but I am specifically attempting to get randomness when using commands - the redstone solutions do not apply here. In what order should one apply max HP reduction and damage? A character at 10/26 HP is hit by a Wraith and fails the Constitution saving throw. They take 21 damage and their maximum HP is reduced to 5.  Are they unconscious because the 11 excess damage is less than 26 or dead because it's greater than 5? Does Windows use the fastest drive for the page file? Suppose I have a 6 GB page file on an SSD and another 6 GB page file on a traditional mechanical 5400rpm SATA drive.  Does Windows take into account the difference in the performance characteristics between the two drives when deciding which page file to use?  If it matters, I'm asking about Windows 7 and higher.  I reviewed this  but it doesn't appear to factor in the case of dissimilar storage speeds. tcolorbox Spanning Two Columns in {paracol} Environment The paracol environment allows figures to span two columns by using an asterisk in the figure's environment declaration: \begin{figure*} ... \end{figure*}.  I'm not familiar with the guts of why that works, and I was curious to know if there's something analogous for an environment derived from tcolorbox (like \newtcolorbox{NewBox}[1][!htbp]{...float=#1}). That is, in this example, can I get a NewBox that spans both paracol columns the way I wrongly assumed \begin{NewBox*} ... \end{NewBox*} would.  PS The tag below is "parcolumns" because I don't have a high enough reputation to create the tag 'paracol' (in reference to this CTAN package: ) Integer reciprocals in arithmetic progression Let $m_1,m_2,\ldots,m_k$ be $k$ positive integers such that their reciprocals are in AP. Show that $k&lt;m_1+2$. Also find such a sequence.     Whatever way I tried, whichever formula I used, I could not eliminate the $m_k$ term, which I reckon would be the ideal scenario to find the solution. I am exhausted of any further ideas, please help. Thank you. Dispose or Recycle Hard Drive I have 3 old 3.5" internal hard drives sitting gathering dust at the moment. 2 are SATA, and one IDE. I want to either start putting them to use, or dispose of them to clear up some space.  What is the best approach towards disposing of the drives in terms of thoroughly cleaning the contents before throwing away or selling? Are there any recommendations for good software to use to do this?   Are there any 100% successful methods which result in having a usable drive at the end? How do I install different (upgrade or downgrade) PHP version in still supported Ubuntu release? What can I do to increase passive HF RFID read range? I am working on a prototype, one function of which is to detect whether an object is "in range" by a few cm. Right now I'm just using an Arduino and a cheap  that operates at 13.56 MHz:    I've successfully gotten it to detect the tag, but only at a distance of about 3-4 cm when the tag is oriented parallel to the antenna.  According to my  , the HF band allows read ranges of between 10 cm and 1 m for passive tags, depending on factors like antenna size, tag size and orientation, and transceiver power.  I realize this inexpensive reader is not up to task as-is, but I'm interested in building something that achieves read ranges of 15-20 cm.  Some criteria:   No need to read multiple tags; only whether one tag is in range or not. No need to write to the tag. Cannot use an active tag.   I'm not experienced with RFID reader construction (yet) but am interested in knowing what I should pursue.  Here are some things I've considered:   Ditch the embedded antenna on the cheap RFID reader and construct my own, larger antenna. I'd need to see if the onboard  is up to the task of providing additional power. Look for a different IC around which to build a reader from scratch. Find a ready-made solution instead of trying to build one (more cost-effective?). Use something other than RFID for simple proximity detection.   I am experienced with microcontrollers and basic electronics, and have made audio and lighting projects, but this is a first with RFID. Since I don't need to read multiple tags, which RFID is suitable for, I've considered maybe some sort of magnet and hall-effect sensor, but the range does not seem adequate. I considered using an ultrasonic proximity detector, but the application calls for detecting the tagged object while ignoring untagged ones (ultrasonic would produce false positives on untagged objects). I've considered some sort of reflective surface placed on the object, and detecting reflected light, but the object orientation is not reliable enough to maintain alignment.  So, in a nutshell, What modifications can I make to my existing reader, or what alternate technology should I pursue to achieve 15-20 cm detection of a passively tagged object?  I plan on connecting whatever proximity detector is used to a microcontroller using SPI. Why do Lambertian Reflectors Privilege the Observer? I'm currently working my way through Harvard's online abstract algebra lectures (if you're interested, you can find them ).  The lectures come complete with notes and homework problems.  Of course, since I don't actually go to Harvard, I can't hand in the homework assignments to find out if I'm doing them correctly.  So I've decided to try to crowd source the grading of my solutions.  I'll post individual questions as I finish them and wait for comments.  I would like to get critiques of not just my reasoning but the style of my write ups as well.  Also, any alternative approaches to the problem would be welcome.  I've looked for forums dedicated to these kinds of OCW courses but have not been able to find any.  This surprises me.  It seems like, with the advent of these free online educational resources, an online meeting place for those who take advantage of them would be a natural offshoot.  So this might be a bit of an experiment.  Unless I'm the 873rd person to post something like this here.  If that's the case, sorry for being so long winded.  Anyway, on with the question.  This one is assigned in the 4th lecture.     Let $V$ denote the Klein 4-group.  Show that $\operatorname{Aut}(V)$ is isomorphic to $S_3$.   (I've moved my solution below to keep this question from showing up in the unanswered list.)  Thanks... If you know what a number mod two different primes is (3 and 2) in this case, how can you tell what the mod is of the two products? It seems that a number of the statistical packages that I use wrap these two concepts together. However, I'm wondering if there are different assumptions or data 'formalities' that must be true to use one over the other. A real example would be incredibly useful. I am working on an app that allows customers to upload images, video, (even gif) into my app. Once the case is processed on my app, I want to place those media files into Salesforce. I have a case record that I would this attached to.   I see multiple records can be added in Rest , and that files can be added to notes and attachments. Can I upload multiple notes and attachments in a single rest call? I already found the radius of convergence of the power series $:$ $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac {(-1)^n} {n} z^{n(n+1)}.$$ What happens at the boundary of disk of convergence?  I found that the radius of convergence to be $1$ and hence the disk of convergence is $|z|&lt;1$. Now I found at $z=1$ the series converges. Now how can I proceed? Please help me. Thank you in advance. Which notation and why: $\text{P}()$, $\Pr()$, $\text{Prob}()$, or $\mathbb{P}()$ Best way to extract a subvector from a vector? Is God either immoral or not omnipotent? The usual (Christian) justification for suffering/evil in the world created by a benevolent God is freedom of the will. However, the more interesting question is not about the source of evil (which the free will may very well be) but why God chose to create the world such as it is. Why not create a world with freedom of the will, but without suffering? Even assuming that God is bound by logic such combination doesn't seem to be logically impossible: creatures certainly can do good of their own free will. There are two alternatives.  1) God is powerful enough for all practical intents and purposes, enough to be called God, but not omnipotent. He created only the best of all possible worlds (Leibniz). This position is perhaps the most defensible philosophically, it also avoids logical problems with , etc., but it does diminish deity's status and invites unpleasant questions like what limits God (logic only, inert matter, outer chaos, other beings), is there someone/thing more powerful, etc.    Interestingly enough, the original Christian theodicy wasn't free will. St.Augustine says poetically "the canvas of creation requires both the black and the white paint". "Requires" here can be interpreted differently,  is to explain the black by the "just punishment" for the original sin, which brings us to Adam and Eve, and back to the free will. But if God is still omnipotent and hence omniscient creating creatures he knew would sin, and then punishing them for it is hardly an improvement.   2) However, Augustine can be read more straightforwardly. Evil is "required" for the perfection of the world just like black paint is required for the perfection of a painting (evil can be interpreted as lack of good rather than something onto itself but that is beside the point). God is immoral, and he is beyond our conception of morality, his notion of perfection is his own. This is much bolder, and similar to Plotinus's position on the existence of the One, the One can not exist because it is "prior to all existence". But it does evoke the unpleasant taste of "ends justify the means". It is one thing to use "God is beyond our logic and comprehension" to get rid of unliftable stones, it is quite another to convince people to worship an immoral perfectionist.  Formally, there is another logical possibility of asserting both morality and omnipotence, but defending the morality of creating a world full of suffering, for a higher purpose perhaps. For example, the suffering only appears bad to us, not to an absolute being in its wisdom. But this simply redefines morality and is only different in phraseology from the Augustine's position. The question is asked in human terms and has to be answered in kind. One is free to argue that God is beyond human logic and/or morality, but it still leaves him immoral as commonly understood.   There does not appear to be a way to square this circle, one has to accept Leibniz's or Augustine's alternative (or both) and deal with the downsides. Option 2) looks more consistent, but it is rarely embraced, at least not openly. Perhaps, for "public relations" reasons it is more attractive to dismiss the question with something like "this is beyond us" or change the subject to the free will.      What are the modern theological positions on the morality/omnipotence in catholisism, protestantism, etc.? Is the question relevant to other religions?   EDIT: I am not sure that it came through but by immoral I did not mean morally deficient or evil. Rather at the God's plane of being morality becomes meaningless, like tastes or smells are meaningless when applied to elementary particles.