I was wondering how to write the possessive form of a proper noun that is already in a possessive form (confusing, I know...) My company's name is Tuc's Contracting. If I were to write the possessive form of that, it would be Tuc's Contracting's. My question is if I were to leave off the "Contracting's" part, how would I write the possessive form of Tuc's (which is a proper noun already in a possessive form...HELP!)  The proper noun is not “Tuc” it is “Tuc’s” so that is where I am confused… Tuc's? Tucs'? Tuc's'? The proper noun is not “Tuc” it is “Tuc’s” so that is where I am confused… None of these seem right to me...And that is why I am seeking your expertise!  Thank you :)
If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe something belonging to Lord's? Would you say:     I was very impressed by Lord's's customer services.   It doesn't look right, so what is the correct way of writing it?
Navier-Stokes system constraint in oracle Modelling a spiral around a sphere I'm trying to figure out the best way to model the sphere-spiral here:    Is it possible to make this shape directly? Or do you have to make it as a cylinder and wrap it to a sphere? Similar matrices and field extensions Given a field $F$ and a subfield $K$ of $F$. Let $A$, $B$ be $n\times n$ matrices such that all the entries of $A$ and $B$ are in $K$. Is it true that if $A$ is similar to $B$ in $F^{n\times n}$ then they are similar in $K^{n\times n}$?   Any help ... thanks! How can I search within a manpage? Clerical mistake in UK visa application: should I make a pen-and-ink correction or electronically edit the PDF? I've gone through all similar questions but I believe my specific question doesn't have an answer yet.  I've applied for a Standard Visitor visa. After I completed the application, made an appointment and paid the fee, I noticed that the way I spelled my name on the application differs from how it is spelled in the passport by 1 letter (this is partially because of myself being an idiot, but mainly because my new passport has an incorrect transliteration of my name, whereas my old passport and any other document in my life has the correct one).  So here are the options I see:   Print the application and make a pen-and-ink correction with a black ballpoint pen by crossing the printed name/letter and writing the correct one - as answers to other similar questions suggests. Edit the PDF electronically and print it so that there are no visible corrections. However, as the form is saved at their end, there will be a discrepance between the printed form and saved form with no visible signs of correction.   Which way has better chance for me to have my application accepted?  Also (probably doesn't matter much but still): if it's the pen-and-ink correction, is it better to cross-out the whole name or only the wrong letter? Solve $x^2+5x+6 \equiv 187 \mod 187$ Solution $$x^2+5x+6 \equiv 187 \mod 187$$ $$ (x+\frac{5}{2})^2 \equiv \frac{1}{4}$$ $$ 4(x+\frac{5}{2})^2 \equiv 1$$ $$ y:= x+\frac{5}{2} $$ $$ 4y^2 \equiv 1 \mod 11 \wedge 4y^2 \equiv 1 \mod 17  $$ $$ ( 2y \equiv 1 \mod 11 \vee 2y \equiv 10 \mod 11 ) \wedge ( 2y \equiv 1 \mod 17  \vee 2y \equiv 13 \mod 17)  $$ $$ ( y \equiv 6 \mod 11 \vee y \equiv 5 \mod 11 ) \wedge ( y \equiv 9 \mod 17  \vee y \equiv 15 \mod 17)  $$ Combining that from CRT I got: $$ y \in \left\{49, 60,83,94 \right\} $$ and for example: $$ x+\frac{5}{2}  \equiv 94 \mod 187$$ $$ 2x  \equiv 183 \mod 187$$ some calculus and get... $$x \equiv 185 $$ And the same thing for each other case. Question Is there any faster (or smarter) way to solve equations like that? This question is in the spirit of , an example of an apparently non-deterministic system in Newtonian mechanics. Under certain restrictions, the  guarantees the existence and uniqueness of solutions to differential equations with initial conditions. However, Norton's dome does not satisfy these restrictions. The ball may sit on top of the dome for an arbitrary period of time before sliding down in a particular trajectory, without violating Newton's laws of motion.    Is there a plausible example of a system of interacting point-particles such that the equations of a point-particle are continuous but not , and therefore fail to have a unique solution? Is there a package that automatically inserts the ToC level of the reference I inserted?  Section 1.1 \label{a} Subsection 1.1.1 \label{b} Subsection 1.1.2  \label{c}   So that the text:  Blah \superref{a} and \superref{b} and \superref{c}   becomes:  Blah Section 1.1 and Subsection 1.1.1 and Subsection 1.1.2   So that it automatically adapts if I change the level of a label? "Naturally occurring" non-Hausdorff spaces? It is not difficult for a beginning point-set topology student to cook up an example of a non-Hausdorff space; perhaps the simplest example is the line with two origins. It is impossible to separate the two origins with disjoint open sets. It is also easy for a beginning algebraic geometry student to give a less artificial example of a non-Hausdorff space: the Zariski topology on affine $n$-space over an infinite field $k$, $\mathbf{A}_{k}^{n}$, is not Hausdorff, due to the fact that polynomials are determined by their local behavior. Open sets here are in fact dense. I am interested in examples of the latter form. The Zariski topology on $\mathbf{A}_{k}^{n}$ exists as a tool in its own right, and happens to be non-Hausdorff. As far as I'm aware, the line with two origins doesn't serve this purpose. What are some non-Hausdorff topological spaces that aren't merely pathological curiosities? How to trigger workflow from button in O365 I created a script editor webpart. I added a button which start a js function in the onClick event. I would like to start a workflow which is implemented on some list. Is this possible? The SourceForge signon page says I can associate an OpenID with my existing SourceForge account:    I enter my currently-signed-in SourceForge account password I select the custom OpenID URL and enter https://openid.stackexchange.com I'm redirected to https://openid.stackexchange.com/account/login?&lt;session key bits&gt; I enter my openid.stackexchange.com login information there I get the error message:     Cannot Complete Login      Detected an attempt to send an assertion when the identifier () is not owned by the logged in user.    I don't understand what that means. Double Negation in C++ I just came onto a project with a pretty huge code base.   I'm mostly dealing with C++ and a lot of the code they write uses double negation for their boolean logic.    if (!!variable &amp;&amp; (!!api.lookup("some-string"))) {        do_some_stuff();  }                                      I know these guys are intelligent programmers, it's obvious they aren't doing this by accident.   I'm no seasoned C++ expert, my only guess at why they are doing this is that they want to make absolutely positive that the value being evaluated is the actual boolean representation. So they negate it, then negate that again to get it back to its actual boolean value.   Is this correct, or am I missing something? which vectors are perpendicular to each other?  $\vec a = (1, -2, 3)$, $\vec b = (5, 4, 1)$, $\vec c = (1, 0, -5)$  Do i just take the dot product of 2 of them. If the dot product they are at $90^\circ$? But how do i know if there perpendicular? How far into space does one have to travel to see the entire sphere of earth? Virgin Galactic will take passengers aboard SpaceShipTwo  above the surface of the earth. But from this altitude, passengers will only be able to see a certain segment of the curvature of the earth through .  How much further into space would SpaceShipTwo have to travel to give passengers a view of the entire sphere of earth through one of these windows? Proofs with limit superior and limit inferior: $\liminf a_n \leq \limsup a_n$ I am stuck on proofs with subsequences. I do not really have a strategy or starting point with subsequences.   NOTE: subsequential limits are limits of subsequences  Prove: $a_n$ is bounded $\implies \liminf a_n \leq \limsup a_n$   Proof:  Let $a_n$ be a bounded sequence. That is, $\forall_n(a_n \leq A)$.  If $a_n$ converges then $\liminf a_n = \lim a_n = \limsup a_n$ and we are done.  Otherwise $a_n$ has a set of subsequential limits we need to show $\liminf a_n \leq \limsup a_n$:  This is where I am stuck... This is from page 3 of  ().  Copying the relevant segment:     Stirling’s approximation tells us $\sqrt{2\pi n} (n/e)^n \leq n! \leq e^{1/12n} \sqrt{2\pi n} (n/e)^n$. In particular we can use this to say that   $$ {n \choose k} \leq \left(\frac{en}{ k}\right)^k$$   I tried the tactic of combining bounds from $n!$, $k!$ and $(n-k)!$ and it didn't work. How does this bound follow from stirling's approximation? Image looks embossed when converted to SVG What is the recommended way to encrypt user passwords in a database? Why is the shape of lightning or an electric spark a zig-zag line? Why is the shape of the  (or an electric spark) always of a zig-zag nature? Why is it never just a straight line?     .