Genady

Here we go again. Thank you for participating.

I know it is the start. That's why I have mentioned it. But you didn't answer my question. If so, why do you think that I think money is valuable?

Sure. How about a delayed pay? You work today, but you don't need money today. So, you agree to get paid later, with interest. Is it acceptable?

Do they need to stay in the 3x3 configuration?

Work doesn't have to be hard.

Yes, I misread their post.

Yes, I'd like to know such a way, too. However, Windows' Snipping Tool is quite convenient, copy and paste.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have been happily merged more than 70 years ago. The marriage is called, Quantum Field Theory.

No, it was not. Partially, yes. It was not. You can calculate maximum mass that could be converted into energy as follows. Surface area of a BH is proportional to its mass squared. One BH has mass M1 with surface area A1, the other M2 with area A2. The surface area of the resulting BH cannot decrease. So its surface area A >= A1 + A2. Thus, its mass M is such that M2 >= M12 + M22. This means that maximum mass that could be converted to energy is M1 + M2 - M = M1 + M2 - sqrt(M12 + M22). For example, with your numbers, 100 and 9 solar masses, the maximum was 109 - sqrt(10000+81) = 8.6 solar masses.

Sorry, but we can:

?

It was about 30 years ago. Might be irrelevant now.

I thought of a way that might make this puzzle a bit more transparent (pun intended, see below). You have a plane with the grid points on it as described in the OP. Somebody gives you a transparency with an inkblot on it. You position the transparency on top of your plane in such a way that the inkblot does not cover or touch any of the grid points. Prove that this positioning can be done for inkblot of any shape as long as its area is less than unity.

Good, I can do that. Although, I like to get the same nice presentation without enlarging the entire expression. Regardless, are there advantages of Latex vs Word? Specifically, why would I use Latex here rather than Word?

You have (correctly) shown that some shapes can be placed entirely on the white. However, the question is to show that any shape with area < 1 can be placed this way. Maybe I'm missing something in English here? Is the correct way to say this, "any given shape ..."? Or "arbitrary shape"?

Exactly. +1 What is a better way to reply when asked why one wants to work in Merrill Lynch? Just replace "help us" with "help you": Working At Merrill Lynch: Employee Reviews And Culture - Zippia

Perhaps we're talking about different companies. In my case, if the interviewer asks such a bs question and the applicant verbatim repeats their bs mission statement, we both smile, it creates a good rapport, and we go to substance. One of my winning answers to a substantial question was (from 27 years ago), "I understand that you're looking for a person who can efficiently upgrade your system from the old platform A to the new platform B. I have this-and-this experience with A and such-and-such experience with B. I am the right person to do this job."

If "here" they mean the company, you could just repeat their mission statement. If they mean the specific position you're applying for, your answer should be more substantial.

Achievements in mathematics are not trivial. This statement: is trivial.

Isn't it trivial?

The questions, have been answered:

From past to future. Whose? What about it? I am not familiar with this terminology.

From my experience being on both sides of that table, the only reason to ask this question was to see what to expect, straight answer or bs.

I don't understand (again).

In which way?