I'm not a native speaker, so frequently I don't know underlying semantic subtleties of synonyms; what connotations they bear, which may be antiquated or very official, which are specific to given region or group and such.

Currently, I'm struggling with:

  • engagement / betrothal,
  • betrothed / affianced / engaged / to be married
  • betrothed / a wife-to-be / husband-to-be / fiancée / fiancé

Which ones would be proper for extremely formal occasion (royal pair)? Which ones are more informal? Can you outline differences between them, their general use? And in case I missed some other synonyms, could you supply them?

I would like to leave reviews for some of the Android apps I really appreciate. But leaving reviews on the Google Play Store requires signing up for Google+. Like many others, I refuse to add Google+ (or any social network) to my Google account.

So I thought I would just sign up for another empty Google account, and add Google+ to that. Problem solved. Or so I thought. When I tried to leave the first review, Google Play Store refused to let me leave the review, saying that I hadn't installed the app yet. Furthermore, it said that the account wasn't associated with any devices. Ugh.

Most of the apps are free apps and a few are ones I have purchased.

I've noticed that many people have simply chosen to never leave reviews ever since Google made the poor decision to require a Google+ account in order to leave a review on the Play Store.

Is there a way to easily do what I am trying to accomplish?

BTW, before anyone asks, no, I'm not trying to leave more than one review for any app. I just want to leave a positive review for the apps I enjoy using.

I am trying to use /etc/paths.d to add an executable to my path variable but I have no success so far.

The full path of the executable file is: /opt/ImageMagick/bin/convert

/etc/paths.d contains two files: 40-XQuartz and ImageMagick

The 40-XQuartz contains one line: /opt/X11/bin
The ImageMagick contains one line: /opt/ImageMagick/bin

My echo $PATH gives:


So it seems that only the first file (40-XQuartz) does its job. The permissions of the two files (40-XQuartz and ImageMagick) are exactly the same so my question is why the first one works and the second one is not.

I am running OS X Mavericks.

I have a friend who is rather shy and is reluctant to join in with my RPG hobby. Their main complaint is that they aren't confident enough to roleplay with others. (Or "act," as they say it.) They are a big fan of board games as well as the fantasy genre, and have mentioned they like the idea of an RPG where they have a character and are part of a story.

Eventually, some level of RPG is to be expected, but I'm looking for a system where it can be avoided without it turning into wargaming. What would a good starting system be for them?

Quantum mechanics has a peculiar feature, entanglement entropy, allowing the total entropy of a system to be less than the sum of the entropies of the individual subsystems comprising it. Can the entropy of a subsystem exceed the maximum entropy of the system in quantum mechanics?

What I have in mind is eternal inflation. The de Sitter radius is only a few orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. If the maximum entropy is given by the area of the boundary of the causal patch, the maximum entropy can't be all that large. Suppose a bubble nucleation of the metastable vacuum into another phase with an exponentially tiny cosmological constant happens. After reheating inside the bubble, the entropy of the bubble increases significantly until it exceeds the maximum entropy of the causal patch.

If this is described by entanglement entropy within the bubble itself, when restricted to a subsystem of the bubble, we get a mixed state. In other words, the number of many worlds increases exponentially until it exceeds the exponential of the maximum causal patch entropy. Obviously, the causal patch itself can't possibly have that many many-worlds. So, what is the best way of interpreting these many-worlds for this example?

Thanks a lot!

I'd like to rotate the region between y=cos(x) and y=x^2 - 0.25*pi^2 about the line x=pi. How to do this? So far I have only managed to rotate around the x-axis:



      color=red, opacity=0.15,
      domain=-0.5*pi:0.5*pi, y domain=0:2*pi,
      z buffer=sort]
     ({x * cos(deg(y))}, {x * sin(deg(y)) }, {cos(deg(x))});
     color=red, opacity=0.15,
     domain=-0.5*pi:0.5*pi, y domain=0:2*pi,
     z buffer=sort]
    ({x * cos(deg(y))}, {x * sin(deg(y)) }, {x*x - 0.25*pi^2});


Which produces:
solid of revolution

However, the solid should be more of a donut shape.

Edit: To clarify, I wish to produce a graphic of the solid that this rotation will generate: question

I would like to have a menu like this in surfdome. I don't mean the UI but the flexibility of this menu.

I will try to explain it.

I have some products. I want to match these products with some categories and have multiple type of menus based on these categories.

e.g. (in [] are the categories and in () are the products)

A menu like

[Men] -> [Shoes] -> [Running] -> (Product1)
[Men] -> [Accessories] -> [Running] -> (Product2)
[Women] -> [Shoes] -> [Running] -> (Product3)
[Women] -> [Accessories] -> [Running] -> (Product4)


[Running] -> [Men] ->[Shoes] -> (Product1)
[Running] -> [Women] -> [Shoes] -> (Product3)
[Running] -> [Men] -> [Accessories] -> (Product2)
[Running] -> [Women] -> [Accessories] -> (Product4)


[Shoes] -> [Men] ->[Running] -> (Product1)
[Shoes] -> [Women] -> [Running] -> (Product3)
[Accessories] -> [Men] -> [Running] -> (Product2)
[Accessories] -> [Women] -> [Running] -> (Product4)


What i think it could be done with a tag system, but i would like to ask if anyone know a way to do it?

While writing one's Statement of Purpose for applying to a grad program, should one mention that her spouse is also a grad student in the same university? What are the pro's and con's of that approach - while on one hand, it shows that the candidate is very likely to accept an offer made by the dept, it might also imply that the presence of her spouse is the main reason the applicant wants to get admitted, which might not sit well with the Admissions Committee?

From what I understood, "rid of" is used when I want to express that particular object will be disposed of something. "Get rid of something," on the other hand, does not specify the object. According to the aforementioned, I found few examples that I do not understand:

Need to rid of this yeast infection fast? (Should not this be "get rid of.."?)

He will rid of it. (Is that correct? It is neither "get rid" nor "rid something of something.")

I found both of these examples on the Internet; it can be easily informal. I would just like to know whether I am right here.

At the prime $p=2$, for specific values of $i,j>0$, Lin has constructed certain elements in ${_2\pi_{2^{i+1}+2^{j+1}}^s}$ that are detected by $h_2(h_{i+1}h_j^2+h_i^2h_{j+1})$ in the Adams spectral sequence. For $r=2^i+2^j$, such an element is constructed as a composition of maps $$S^{2r}\longrightarrow\Sigma^rB(r/2)\longrightarrow S^0$$ where $B(n)$ is the $n$-th Brown-Gitler spectrum. We know that when $n$ is an odd number, $B(n)$ is realised as a space after finite number of suspensions. I do not know of anything like this for the case of $n$ being even. What I am interested in is either

(i) a factorisation of the map on left, i.e. $S^r\to B(r/2)$, through suspension spectrum of a finite stable complex, i.e. suspension spectrum of a (de)suspension of a space.

(ii) a factorisation of the map on right, i.e. $\Sigma^rB(r/2)\to S^0$, through suspension spectrum of a finite stable complex, i.e. suspension spectrum of a (de)suspension of a space.

(iii) another construction of the map $S^{2r}\to S^0$ above that does factorise through suspension spectrum of a finite stable complex. Note that if we remove the condition of being a finite complex, then we have the Kahn-Priddy theorem.

If such a construction exists, then I will appreciate any reference to it.


Edit I later on realised that the spectra $B(r)$ can be obtained from Snaith splitting for $\Omega^2S^3$. But, I was not sure if this is for the prime $p=2$. Now, I have found references to this in papers of Ralph Cohen, as well as papers of Fred Cohen, Don Davis, Paul Goerss and Mark Mahowald. Still, any comment on any of the above questions would be very helpful.