Let $ A,B$ two disjoint $ p$ and $ q$ manifolds embedded in $ R^n$ . Can we find always a PL-map $ f:R^n \longrightarrow R^k$ such that $ f(A)$ and $ f(B)$ are contained in two separate disjoint embedded $ k$ -disks ?
I have an important pdf where I need to extract the source image, as lossless as possible (e.g. using png) For some reason, it seems that the source image is made out of 226 image stripes, and when I extract these e.g. with
pdfimages -png name.pdf out-
I get the 226 tiny stripes. That is not what I want. Is there a way to get one single image instead? Using pdfimages -list tells me the info about the stripes, and using e.g. the above pdfimages -png name.pdf out- gives me the 226 single images. One image is e.g. 1604 px width and 5 px height. So far as I checked them, all images seem to be 5 px height, and with 226 single images, I should get one single image of 1604 x 1130 px instead.
$ rsm = new ResultSetMapping(); $ rsm->addEntityResult(Firm::class, "f"); $ rsm->addFieldResult("f", "id", "id"); $ rsm->addFieldResult("f", "name", "name"); $ rsm->addFieldResult("f", "vip", "vip"); $ rsm->addMetaResult("f", "contact_email", "contact") ->setDiscriminatorColumn("f", "contact_email"); $ sql = parent::getEntityManager()->createQuery( "SELECT f.id, sub_categories_id, f.name, vip, contact_mobile, contact_skype, contact_site, contact_email, contact_viber, contact_telegram, contact_instagram, contact_whats_up, mark_lng, mark_lat, schedule_monday, schedule_tuesday, schedule_wednesday, schedule_thursday, schedule_friday, schedule_saturday, schedule_sunday FROM firms f INNER JOIN tags_firms tf on f.id = tf.firm_id INNER JOIN tags t on tf.tag_id = t.id WHERE t.name IN (:q) LIMIT :limit OFFSET :offset", $ rsm); $ r = $ sql->getResult();
Что указывать в ResultSetMapping, что бы он нормально все заполнил.
contact, mark, schedule являются embedded.
Hope you can help.
My team is developing an internal form building tool that simplifies the creation of complex HTML forms by providing pre-made sections and standard form fields that can be combined by dragging and dropping.
This form builder will be used by our developers and it should allow them to create new forms that, in many cases, will need to replicate the structure of already existing forms. It is common for those forms to contain sections with a sequence of embedded lists.
Here’s an example: The section called “Rewards” (the section title is not displayed in the image) contains a list of “Reward buckets” that contain lists of “Rewards for players”, that at the same time contain lists of Rewards.
Now, our tool provides users with a “List” field. And when you embed a list inside another list, things don’t look too bad:
But we’re not finding an elegant way to allow users to nest three consecutive lists inside a section. It just doesn’t work visually and hierarchy is hard to achieve, given that the list component always needs to behave in the same way when added to the section. (The green area indicates selection, by the way, the drawer should display setting options when a field is selected).
Here are some solutions we’re considering:
Providing a pre-made section component that is a “List section”, so it contains by default a button that duplicates its content (combination of fields). (This breaks a bit the IA, since pre-made sections are templates of the existing forms’ sections and will contain fields in them)
Only allow the nesting of one list inside another list, and force users to manually add duplication logic to a button in case they want to duplicate a combination of fields (Buttons can be added as individual form components and can contain logic)
Provide two typologies of list: Simple list (the button to Add an item is displayed only on hover) and Complex lists (a sort of subsection with a duplication button by default). So more visual hierarchy can be achieved.
Thanks for reading! Please don’t hesitate to ask for any clarifications. I understand there are a lot of details to this problem :-/
As you know most tube sites bulk embeds videos from biggest adult tubes (like xvideos, phub etc.) and they get duplicate titled content.
What if we do this:
Can auto spinning of bulk embedded adult tube post titles impact SEO positively?
How much affect of Google SEO can we get?
I am Hazizi from Nera (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. We act as a reseller for this software called FNT Command which owned by FNT itself located in Singapore. This software is for inventory system. We have this one customer who had requested to embed the Google Maps into that software because currently this FNT Command (software name) is has just a Open Map based. The main purpose is to be more details of the road name etc. This customer just want to have a satellite view. Highly appreciate if you can advise us the packages you have for this and the pricing method in order to perform this
If I print the following noise texture image in which I’ve embedded some information with steganography, can I retrieve the information back or can I detect the information loss occurred due to degradation of quality in printing the steganographic image?
I recently started to use Vimium in my Chrome browser and VimFx in FF. I found it very useful. But there’s one thing I simply cannot find a way to do.
Basically, when I am scrolling a website, let’s say Wikipedia, then everything is fine, cuz that’s the only one scroll. But i.e. when I listen to some YouTube playlist, I have the main scrollbar of the site, but there’s this tiny little one to scroll the playlist. And I cannot find a way to move that one around.
So my question here is, is there a way to somehow like select scrollbars other than those “main” ones?
How can I download Google Slides embedded on a website?
I’m having the same issue as this guy: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/42329231/download-google-slide-presentation-published-to-the-web#
I’ve tried the bookmarking method in that I created 2 bookmarks:
as well as
Though while I’m able to save the webpage as pdf, it doesn’t directly extract and export the slides as pdf.
Is there someway I can do it?
Thanks so much!
We can make the following distinctions: (I will use the term “program” and “machine” as synonyms).
A (baseline) machine. This can be formalized by a Turing machine. It receives an input, and computes an output, fully by itself.
An oracle machine $ T$ . This is a Turing machine, but with an additional feature: it can use some black box “oracle” as a subroutine.
A ??? machine $ T$ . This is a machine that does not have any subroutines like an oracle machine. Rather, it is itself a subroutine of some black-box (parent?) machine $ P$ .
The third type is supposed to capture the idea of “dependency injection”. Suppose we have a fixed parent machine $ P$ , which takes as input our machine $ T$ , and uses it (in some way) to compute its output.
In the case of oracle machines $ T$ , we can “plug” an oracle $ O$ into $ T$ , and study what can be achieved by $ T$ given this oracle.
in the case of ??? machines, we do the opposite: we “plug” $ T$ into a $ P$ , and see what can be achieved by $ T$ given the constraint that it will be used as a subroutine by $ P$ .
The question is: What can we make $ P$ compute, by programming $ T$ , given the constraint that $ T$ will be used in some way (exactly how depends on the specific context we’re interested in) by $ P$ ? i.e. which functions are “$ P$ -computable”
oracle machines $ T$ with oracle $ O$ can compute at least as much as Turing machines, since they can just ignore the oracle.
??? machines $ T$ with “parent” $ P$ can compute less than Turing machines, since they are constrained by being used by $ P$ in some way that the programmer of $ T$ cannot control. At two extremes: (1), $ P$ may simply ignore $ T$ , in which case there is only a single unique “$ P$ -computable” function, namely whichever $ P$ computes. (2) $ P$ may literally copy its input into $ T$ , and output the output of $ T$ , in which case every Turing-computable function is also “$ P$ -computable”. In between these extremes, $ P$ may use $ T$ as a subroutine, and use the output in some restricted way.
Alternatively, here is a more “mathematical” way of stating this:
Suppose we have a space $ \mathcal C$ of “computable functions” (e.g. Turing-computable), and we have a “parent function” $ P:\mathcal C\to \mathcal C$ . $ P$ takes a computable function $ c$ (the function that is computed by the turing machine $ T$ in our earlier formulation), and outputs a computable function $ P(c)$ (the function that is computed by giving $ P$ the machines $ T$ as its subroutine). The question now is: What is the image of $ P$ ? These are the $ P$ -computable functions.
Is there a theory about something like this?