LaurieAG

Why would anybody think that cutting the grass (while also fertilizing the soil with blood and bone) would lead to anything but another bumper crop of grass that has to be cut?

That only works if machine code is not a low level language. Also, the two types of errors are syntax errors and logic errors.

So you already know that compilers, not interpreters, find errors in source code before they are run and should therefore know D's correctness status. What are your reasons for classifying the others correctness?

The main problem with B and C is that they do not compare the first element with the last element and B also does not increment the counter. A is the option where all elements are compared with the last element. The FOR and WHILE loops operate differently as the FOR has the counter increment embedded. If you step through each option for each increment and write down what each of the variables are for each of the cycles you will be able to see the differences. KayS, please post your results for 3 cycles of B, C and D. A i j arr(i) arr(j) 1 5 m m 2 5 a m 3 5 d m

For the first element both B and C test arr(i) or arr(index), where i or index = 1 (i.e. element 'm'), against len(arr) -1 (i.e. 5-1 = 4 or element 'a'), which is the second last element not the last element.

A only tests all elements against the last element, B and C test the first element against the second last element while D tests all the elements correctly.

That's interesting as I came across the following on the Wikipedia Fictitious Force page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficticious_Force#Gravity_as_a_fictitious_force

It's a variation of the Liars Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems#Relation_to_the_liar_paradox

It's best if you use the full Editor and click "Preview Post" before adding your reply.

It looks like lightning isn't the only thing modulated by changes in the solar wind. http://www.ips.gov.au/Category/Educational/Space%20Weather/Space%20Weather%20Effects/SatelliteOrbitalDecayCalculations.pdf

Hi Devansh, the courses are available online and there are SANS training centers in India. http://www.sans.org/security-training/by-location/all

Here are some https://www.sans.edu/academics/certificates

The +/- is just part of the standard quadratic formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation#Quadratic_formula_and_its_derivation The 100 comes from 4 * a * c = 4 * 1 * 25 = 100 and the 36 comes from b^2 = -6 * -6 = 36 so SQRT(b^2 - 4 * a * c) = SQRT(-64) = SQRT(64 * -1) = SQRT(64) * SQRT(-1) = 8 * SQRT(-1) = 8i. As -b = 6 and 2 * a = 2 * 1 = 2 so the final equation is (6 +/- 8i)/2 = 3 +/- 4i. It might look like 10^2/2 = 100/2 = 50 if you ignored the bracketing but you could only get .5 if you ignored the bracketing and redefined 10^2 or 2.

I gather that's x^2 not x2. Work towards the roots and you will see where the i comes from. The roots of a quadratic equation in the form of a*x^2 + b*x^1 + c*x^0 = 0 equal (-b +/- SQRT(b^2 -4*a*c))/2a. With a = 1, b = -6 and c = 25 the roots are (6 +/- SQRT(36-100))/2 = (6 +/- SQRT(-1)*SQRT(64))/2 = 3 +/- 4*SQRT(-1) = 3 +/- 4i Also, the roots of a quadratic equation in this form are the point(s) where the plot of the quadratic function crosses the x axis i.e. where y = 0.

I'm currently reading 'On The Shoulders of Giants', with some commentary by Stephen Hawking. It contains English translations of 'On the Revolution of Heavenly Spheres' by Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei's 'Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences', 'Harmonies of the World (Book five)' by Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newtons 'Principa Mathematica' and selected relativity papers by Albert Einstein.

I never thought that any of the multitude of dedicated physicists, engineers and technicians involved with the project had made any real error so I looked at the paper to see where an error of the magnitude of the discrepancy could possibly slip through during the entire process. I thought that the way the error rates in the calibration were broken down was unusual and could mask a cumulative packet/basket count error over the whole calibration cycle which could equal the main error. With high speed electronics you trigger the packet counter when the start of the packet arrives and increment the counter as when each new packet arrives. The only problem with using this method is if you fail to realise that the count that results from the end of the last calibration packet is one greater than the actual number of packets received. All I know is that they released the recalibration figures with much smaller packet sizes and the errors were exactly the same as for the original calibration figures, just before they found the 'loose wire'.

Maybe NASA noticed that the first and third images are from different perspectives (and even different days?) and the 'light's location remains consistent so they ruled out rogue wandering pixels and looked for other alternatives.

While the above images represent what the paths would look like if the sources were rotating at c the distance traveled to the observer equals c/v * 2 * Pi * r where v is the angular velocity of the source. i.e. If the source had an angular velocity of 0.5 c the distance traveled would be c/0.5c = 2 times longer than at c.

I posted the following thread about what the apparent light paths from sources rotating around a center of mass would look like geometrically. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75390-apparent-red-shift-in-a-discrete-newtonian-frame/ It is well known that Newton worked out all of his proofs geometrically first before identifying the underlying mathematics and Einsteins papers progress from geometric considerations as well. When did this method become passe?

All the removed emissions from our galaxy appear to be red shifted though.

Transparency International uses several methods and indexes. The references at the bottom has a link to a 'users guide' to measuring corruption that may help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_International

Geometry is the oldest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry

I saw 'the Enigmatic Giant', an anime episode, on tv the other day that describes the mechanics of an interresting dilemma. The giant in the title guards a bridge and only allows people to cross if they answer his question correctly. His question is "If you lie, I will run you through with my sword, but if you tell the truth, I will strangle you with my bare hands, what do you say?" The correct response is "You will run me through with your sword". If the giant runs the answerer through with his sword then, by his own stated rules, he implies that the answerer lied but if that was the case then the answerer was telling the truth in the original answer and should not be run through with the sword but should be strangled by the giants bare hands.

Remove all of the ink cartridges and give the insides a good wipe over with tissues and then try starting from scratch and loading everything up from the beginning. After you've cleaned up all the mess (wipe the cartridges as well) goto the Start/Devices and Printers/ page and select (right click the printer) the printer Properties and run a few of the Maintenance/cleaning/head alignment options. There is also a troubleshooting option off the right click that might help.

I suppose you think it's perfectly fine to be out by 2 * Pi as well? The difference between Planck's constant h as used in rest mass calculations, and the reduced constant h_bar as used in relativistic mass calculations, is 2 * Pi. It's the same difference between the standard Compton wavelength and the reduced Compton wavelength. Another character could be used to avoid confusion. ₥