If $(A_n)_{n\epsilon \Bbb N}$ is increasing, prove $lim inf A_n = lim sup (A_n) = \bigcup^\infty_{n=1} (A_n)$?
Show lim sup (an) = lim inf (an) for increasing for increasing sequence of subsets.
Symmetry condition for continuous coordinate transformations Okay, maybe I'm missing something obvious but consider $h_n(x) = x^{ 1+ \frac{1}{2n-1}}$ on the set $[-1,1]$. Now consider a fixed $x \in [-1,1]$, we have:  $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} h_n(x) = x \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} x^\frac{1}{2n-1} = x$$  But my book says it's $|x|$? Why? We are all told at school water vapour and carbon dioxide are the top two greenhouse gases, and that they absorb thermal infra red radiation, trap heat and warm up the Earth. My question is how do they do that? Why can't Oxygen or Nitrogen or any other gas not absorb infra red radiation as well as water vapour or CO2? Search for all files with a .sql extension in folders and sub folders Primes dividing a polynomial Let $g(x)\in \mathbb{Z}[x]$, a nonconstant polynomial. Show that the set of primes $p$ such that $p\mid g(n)$ for some $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ is infinite.  I don't know how to start. I have tried asuming that the set is finite but i haven't reached any contradiction. Intuitive explanation for formula of maximum length of a pipe moving around a corner? For one of my homework problems, we had to try and find the maximum possible length $L$ of a pipe (indicated in red) such that it can be moved around a corner with corridor lengths $A$ and $B$ (assuming everything is 2d, not 3d):    My professor walked us through how to derive a formula for the maximum possible length of the pipe, ultimately arriving at the equation $L = (A^{2/3} + B^{2/3})^{3/2}$.  The issue I have is understanding intuitively why this formula works, and exactly what it's doing. I understand the steps taken to get to this point, but there's an odd symmetry to the end result -- for example, is the fact that $\frac{2}{3}$ and its inverse are the only constants used just a coincidence, or indicative of some deeper relationship?  I also don't quite understand how the formula relates, geometrically, to the diagram. If I hadn't traced the steps myself, I would have never guessed that the formula was in any way related to the original problem.  If possible, can somebody give an intuitive explanation as to why this formula works, and how to interpret it geometrically?    Here's how he found the formula, if it's useful:  The formula is found by finding the maximum possible length of the pipe by expressing the length in terms of the angle $\theta$ formed between the pipe and the wall, and by taking the derivative to find when $\frac{dL}{d\theta} = 0$, which is the minimum of $\frac{dL}{d\theta}$ and is therefore when $L$ is the smallest:  $$ L = \min_{0 \leq \theta \leq \frac{\pi}{2}} \frac{A}{\cos{\theta}} + \frac{B}{\sin{\theta}} \\ 0 = \frac{dL}{d\theta} = \frac{A\sin{\theta}}{\cos^2{\theta}} - \frac{B\cos{\theta}}{\sin^2{\theta}} \\ 0 = \frac{A\sin^3{\theta} - B\cos^3{\theta}}{\sin^2{\theta}\cos^2{\theta}} \\ 0 = A\sin^3{\theta} - B\cos^3{\theta} \\ \frac{B}{A} = \tan^3{\theta} \\ \theta = \arctan{\left( \frac{B}{A} \right)^{\frac{1}{3}}} \\ $$  At this point, we can substitute $\theta$ back into the original equation for $L$ by interpreting $A^{1/3}$ and $B^{1/3}$ as sides of a triangle with angle $\theta$ and hypotenuse $\sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} }$:  $$ \cos{\theta} = \frac{A^{1/3}}{ \sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} }} \\ \sin{\theta} = \frac{B^{1/3}}{ \sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} }} \\ \therefore L = A^{2/3} \sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} } + B^{2/3} \sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} } \\ L = (A^{2/3} + B^{2/3}) \sqrt{A^{2/3} + B^{2/3} } \\ L = (A^{2/3} + B^{2/3})^{3/2} \\ $$  The equation for the formula for the maximum length of the pipe is therefore $L = (A^{2/3} + B^{2/3})^{3/2}$. if there are 4 different tables and 18 people, how many ways can the people be seated to have at least 4 in each table? For example with 15 people at 3 different tables each seating 5 people, is the number of combinations of seating equal to: $$\binom{15}5\binom{10}5(4!)^3$$ Expand the username auto-completion to everyone who can be notified PHP PDOException: "SQLSTATE[HY093]: Invalid parameter number" Why are there only derivatives to the first order in the Lagrangian? Why is the Lagrangian a function of the position and velocity (possibly also of time) and why are dependences on higher order derivatives (acceleration, jerk,...) excluded?  Is there a good reason for this or is it simply "because it works". This question is about why we have a universal speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum). Is there a more fundamental law that tells us why this is? I'm not asking why the speed limit is equal to $c$ and not something else, but why there is a limit at all. EDIT: Answers like &quot;if it was not..&quot; and answers explaining the consequences of having or not having a speed limit are not--in my opinion-- giving an answer to whether there is a more fundamental way to derive it from a law to explain this limit. Looking out into the universe means looking back in time - how does that work? This is a question that has been gnawing on me for many years now. Back a long time ago, as I recall in reference to a scene in a popular science show on TV, I was asked the following.  The claim is that when you look out into the universe, you see the universe as it appeared at some past time. (This follows from the speed of light being finite, and looking at objects by observing their emitted light or other EM radiation.) The amount of time that one looks backwards is equal to the distance to the observed object in light-distance (so looking at something ten lightyears away means you are observing it as it was ten years ago).  Matter moves at a rate of speed less than the speed of light (it has to, since matter has mass, even if miniscule at the atomic level). So $v_{mass} \lt v_{EM}$ (probably significantly less, since $v_{EM} = c$).  So let's say you're looking at an object $10^{10}$ lightyears away by observing something for which $v=c$. To the observer, that object appears as it was $10^{10}$ years ago. But the Earth is much younger than $10^{10}$ years and we established that matter moves at a slower speed than EM radiation, so wouldn't the radiation that was emitted $10^{10}$ years ago long since have passed Earth's current position?  If, say, $v_{mass} = 0.5 \times c$ (a big assumption, but bear with me for a second), it would seem that the radiation emitted $10^{10}$ years ago would have passed Earth's current position $10^{10} - (0.5 \times 10^{10}) = 5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago, around the time when the solar system was still forming. Setting $v_{mass} = 0.25 \times c$ (which seems more realistic) means the radiation would have passed "us" around $7.5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago. So how could we be observing it now?  I'm not sure I'm posing this question in the best possible way (I'll admit I do find the concept somewhat confusing), and I'm sure that there's a simple explanation for it all. Just what am I missing?  I did find  which seems peripherally related but not quite the same thing. Qmechanic brought up  but that question seems to be about whether it is so, not why it is so. Are there tips and tricks for people with fear of flying that can makes them have a more pleasant experience when flying? I know drugs can do magic, and . I'm ideally after official advice and recommendations, but other tips and tricks would be nice as well. I've been thinking of animating some dice and while most are easy to make, I'm having some trouble figuring out a way to generate a regular dodecahedron. I could hand build it but it would be potentially uneven. Would using the base of a 5 sided cylinder and then some variation on spin be the best option or is there a better way? Automating the scanning of graphics files for corruption Does anyone know of a way to check graphics files (particularly JPEG, GIF, and PNG) for corruption (preferably in an automated way)?    Explanation:  A few days ago, a command worked incorrectly and ended up deleting thousands of graphics files from a FAT32 volume that was practically out of space. I’ve used several different file/photo-recovery programs, but naturally, they are limited in how much they can recover (though fortunately the volume has 8KB clusters, which helps somewhat).  Anyway, some of the larger files, that were fragmented, are now corrupt. Some of them are not even real files at all (the recovery software merely dumped the clusters that were pointed to by now-overwritten directory entries), while others are broken because of fragmentation.  Moreover, because some picture formats embed a smaller version of the picture as a thumbnail, scanning the thumbnails for corruption is not reliable because it may be intact while the actual file (i.e., the picture when viewed full-size), could be corrupt.    Here are a couple of examples:      Here’s the second one. It’s so damaged that it doesn’t display anything.    (A third one wouldn’t even upload because it doesn’t even have the correct header!) I've lost my original power adapter, and I can't find the proper one in any of the stores currently available.  I've HP Compaq 6730b, and as per  it outputs 18.5V 3.5A. However, I've found an older power adapter I have which outputs 19.5V 4.62 A.  So, my question is: how much of a difference between those two it really is, and more importantly, how much of a risk would it be if I tried the power adapter I already have.  P.S. I know pretty much nothing about electricity/electronics. According to the , when a Shinigami dies, their remaining lifespan is given to the human they saved.     Shinigami who die are reduced to dust, and their remaining lifespan is given to the human they saved.   Since Rem killed L and Watari, she gained their remaining lifespans. Additionally she probably still had some lifespan left. On top of that Misa was already given a lot of lifespan from Gelus (from which she lost 75% again). So does this mean all of this lifespan is transferred to Misa Amane?!  Yet according to her , she dies in 2011 at the age of 26, only seven years after Rem died.  Does this mean that humans are also capable of reducing their own lifespans? Or would the author have made a mistake by letting Misa die as early as she has? I know she lost 75% of her remaining lifespan through the two eye deals, but you'd think that the cumulation of L, Watari and Rem's remaining lifespans would be greater than just one year, wouldn't you? Deciding whether two metrics are topologically equivalent in the space $C^1([0,1])$ Consider the space $C^1([0,1])$ and the function $d:C([0,1])\times C([0,1]) \to \mathbb R$ defined as $d(f,g)=|f(0)-g(0)|+sup_{x \in [0,1]}|f'(x)-g'(x)|$. Decide whether the metrics $d$ and $d_{\infty}$ are topologically equivalent in $C^1([0,1])$ (where $d_{\infty}=sup_{x \in [0,1]}|f(x)-g(x)|)$  My attempt at a solution:  If two metrics are topologically equivalent, then they have the same convergent sequences. Honestly, I couldn't do anything. I am trying to define a sequence of functions $\{f_n\}_{n \in \mathbb N}$ such that $f_n \to f$ in, for instance, $(C^1([0,1]),d)$ but $f_n \not \to f$ in $(C^1([0,1]),d_{\infty})$. Could it be this two metrics are topologically equivalent? If this is the case, how could I prove it? If not, I would appreciate any hint to find an adequate sequence of functions that works for what I am trying to prove. Let $m\in \mathbb{N}$ and $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m \in \mathbb{R}_+$. Show that $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_1^n+c_2^n+\ldots+c_m^n} = \max\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m\}$$  My attempt: Since $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_1^n+c_2^n+\ldots+c_m^n} \leq \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\sqrt[n]{\max\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m\}} = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{n}\sqrt[n]{\max\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m\}}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \max\{\sqrt[n]{c_1^n},\sqrt[n]{c_2^n},\ldots,\sqrt[n]{c_m^n}\}=\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\max\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m\}=\max\{c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_m\}$$  it follows that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \sqrt[n]{c_1^n+c_2^n+\ldots+c_m^n}$ is bounded, but I don't think it's monotonically decreasing, at least I can't prove this. Can anybody tell me whether the approach I have chosen is a good one, whether what I have done is correct and how to finish the proof? SQL Server Query Plan Hash Collision I'm wondering if anyone can shed light on a worry of mine that a query_plan_hash collision could cause a query to be executed as an entirely different query.  The hash is a 16 digit Hex that sp_help sys.dm_exec_query_stats says is a binary. Therefore it's only a 64 bit hash, and a collision seems very probable (considering SHA1 [160 bit] was just verified to have had collisions).  Would the plan_hash and the query_plan_hash both have to collide for this (query to be executed as an entirely different query) to happen?  I'm also curious if there is a setting somewhere in SQL Server that will allow us to change this hash to SHA2-512 (to reduce the possibility of a collision). Our data is very important.  I searched high and low via Google and Stack Exchange forums.