## Theory of complexity – What is the fastest algorithm to determine if a linear system in \$ mathbb {R} \$ has a solution?

I know the best algorithm to solve a linear system $$mathbb {R}$$ with $$n$$ variables is the algorithm of Coppersmith-Winograd, which has a complexity of
$$O left (n ^ {2.376} right).$$
How easy is it to simply determine if the same system has a solution?

More specifically, given a system of $$m$$ equations and $$n$$ unknowns, what is the complexity of establishing if it has a solution?

## domain name system – SPF: Multiple Mailserver

I have a domain with this record A:

``````A 1.2.3.4
``````

And a mail record like this, I have my mail services at a different hosting provider for the exchange.

``````MX mxpool.example.com
``````

Now I want to set up a correct SPF record. I tried without and I tried like this:

``````"v = spf1 mx ~ all"
``````

But the mails block as spam. The email provider has a mail server pool and I did not get the correct IP address. And the host names of the mail server have also changed. So, how could I set a correct FPS for this?
Thank you.

## differential equations – ODE non-autonomous uses NDSolve, error: Step Size is effectively zero; we suspect a singularity or a rigid system

I saw this error `NDSolve :: ndsz` many times when I use `NDSolve` to get the solution of a non autonomous ODE. I tried but everything failed. Thank you, here is the code, very simple

``````    s = NDSolve[{x'
y & # 39;
X[0] == 1, including[0] == 1}, {x

ParametricPlot[Assess[{X[Evaluate[{X[Évaluer[{X[Evaluate[{x
``````

## Agnostic System – How do I know if I am a problem gambler?

Suppose I suspect that I can be considered a "problem gamer" but that I am not sure. I play using techniques, decisions or movements that, while not obviously inappropriate, are atypical or time consuming, and I am not sure that others around the table are bored.

How can I tell if I am perceived as a problem gambler? Is this the only true answer to say

Ok, my ranger is going back to town to try to get in the air. Oh, by the way, am I a problem gambler?

or are there any techniques or best practices that I can use to s & # 39; regulate my style of play to avoid problems? In other words, I want to avoid to be the "problem gamer" of which a lot of DMs and players talk about RPG.SE (for example, how to manage a disruptive gamer, and how can I, a novice GM, deal with a PC that is constantly difficult?), without need to rely on waiting to be told that.

Note: This is a generic question about "best practices" and not a specific request for advice on a specific situation. I almost posted it on Interpersonal Skills.SE, but I thought that people here had a better idea of ​​the interpersonal aspects of table games.

## steam – How to get the SteamID of the currently active user from the file system or shell? (The Windows)

Can any one tell if it is possible to programmatically read the SteamID of the user currently logged on under Windows? From the file system or via cmd / powershell?

Background: I am looking to create a mod for a Steam game that will exchange data with a third party server. But I will need a way to reliably tell SteamID users for authentication and resource allocation purposes. With the game's scripting engine, I can read files from the file system, make http requests or run other binaries like cmd, but that's about it all. The functions of the SDK / Steam API are not exposed.

Currently, I read the "LastOwner" property of the vCF appmanifest file created with each game in the steamapps folder. However, this one is only the ID of the user who installed the game, which is not necessarily the ID of the active user.

## Symplectic Geometry – Integrable System vs Lagrangian Fibration

Each complete integrable system $$I: M rightarrow mathbb {R} ^ n$$ is a regular Langrangian fibration on a dense subset of the symplectic variety $$M$$.

It is also known that each Lagrangian fibration is locally considered as a complete integrable system.

I remain amazed at the obstacles we encounter when we ask the question "Does this Lagrangian fibration correspond to a fully integrable system?"

## Pretext

Many times, a group must choose one of the events or actions that are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. This may imply that computers decide several things to do based on their personal values ​​and motivations, or that the players decide which plot is the most interesting to play (especially with more shared types of campaigns), or even choices. covering both CI and OOC Decision (for example, when PC motives reflect the interests of players).

The choice to make seems to have a major effect on the narrative, such moments of decision making can easily be as important, or even more important than the main mechanics of a game (and the corresponding mechanical balance).

## Why I am not satisfied with the use of simple voting

A simple approach to this decision-making process is direct democracy – a man, a vote. However, this tends to amplify the differences in preferences observed over the long term. For example, if two players and two PCs prefer the sneaky approach, the other social and the other direct fight, ten out of ten encounters will be handled sneakily, which means that with 50% After the vote, the Stealth duo gets 100% of "the most fun approach" (of their PoV), while the other two players and their PCs represent the remaining 50% of the vote, while getting 0% of the preferred approach.

A second disadvantage of this straightforward direct vote is that, although everyone's preferences are stable and known, different issues may still be of different importance to different people. For example, the social can really want to civilly manage the encounter with the imperial satrap, but be much more willing to accept a brute-force solution or an assassination when it comes to dealing with the local pirate captain. Yet a simple and separate vote on each question does not reflect this nuance.

Some would say, "So negotiate, like people in parliament!" This is an improvement over the simple vote. . . in theory. However, I want to reduce the oversights and inflections often associated with promises and negotiations in practice. For that, I'm looking for a way to use auction mechanisms to quantify the relative value of a given choice for a given player and / or character, by adding structure and transparency to those negotiations.

## Auction mechanisms as they are currently envisaged

All long-term participants in a group who must constantly make decisions (players or characters) are given an equal number of points. Let's say 10 to each participant (or 100 to each – as long as it's the same number). When the group meets the metaphorical branch of the road, participants can take points in their pools and "drop" them into a "box" that matches a given decision, hoping that the choice of the "box" who has the most points wins. & # 39 ;.

In this way, a person who does not really believe in a decision can spend little or no points, which allows him to have a greater influence on a hypothetical future decision that is subjectively more important. Conversely, a person who is committed to a given decision can do much to help the party choose it now and sacrifice their influence in the future.

Finally, the group of points is supposed to regenerate gradually – p. Ex. 20% of the departure reserve for each big fork of the road encountered. The maximum number of points accumulated can be limited or not.

## Nuances of which I am not sure

Some aspects of the process can be handled differently, and I'm not sure of the pros and cons of each way of doing things. I'm going to write a few that I noticed, but I'd like to know who I miss and maybe who I miss. implications I may have disappeared.

• Are everyone's offers visible or only revealed when all offers have been launched? Closed bids appear to be the fastest, but also the most sensitive games, which is a reduction in transparency.
• The points spent on a choice that has been "defeated" by another choice are lost or refunded. Refunds seem intuitively likely to produce a "pendulum" effect, but waivers seem to encourage all-or-nothing bidding.
• Are there several bidding rounds? Obviously, this does not make sense for closed bids. Another trick also encourages all-or-nothing auctions, while multiple risks make the process too long.
• What is the relationship between the seed pool, the pool refresh rate, and the maximum number of points that can be stored in the pool (or the absence of points). If I understand correctly, the rate of regeneration should be roughly comparable to the expected average arithmetic importance of a choice, and I suspect that for optimal performance, the value of the starting reserve should be equal to half of the maximum value. But is there any reason to prefer a given ratio of the starting / maximum pool to the average choice / regeneration value? Intuitively, an uncapped pool seems dangerous because of the hoarding potential, but is it the case – or is it easy to do to automatically correct itself by other function switches? Are there any other advantages or disadvantages of a given size of the pool ceiling or the lack thereof?

I currently think that the best configuration is an auction open to several rounds, and that we look at the refund of lost points.

## What answers am I looking for

I am looking for more information on the pros and cons of various auction subsystem configurations or the reasons for choosing specific combinations of features. I am also interested in learning mathematical / mechanical techniques that I may not be aware of that would be useful to me in my quest for a more quantified and transparent approach to nuanced and proportional decision-making.

I am do not looking for vague ideas without mechanical techniques. I do not seek disdainful answers of the type "speak like humans". The arguments to completely abandon the auction method should not be based on emotions, but rather on the fact that it would be overall worse than the simple majority method, which is often a flaw in role play groups ( that it is a CO or an OOC).

## Agnostic System – How to Use Auction Mechanisms to Maintain Narrative Balance and Quantify the Importance of Choices?

Pretext

Many times, a group must choose one of the events or actions that are contradictory or even mutually exclusive. This may imply that computers decide several things to do based on their personal values ​​and motivations, or that the players decide which plot is the most interesting to play (especially with more shared types of campaigns), or even choices. covering both CI and OOC Decision (for example, when PC motives reflect the interests of players).

The choice to make seems to have a major effect on the narrative, such moments of decision making can easily be as important, or even more important than the main mechanics of a game (and the corresponding mechanical balance).

Why I am not satisfied with the use of simple voting

A simple approach to this decision-making process is direct democracy – a man, a vote. However, this tends to amplify the differences in preferences observed over the long term. For example, if two players and two PCs prefer the sneaky approach, the other social and the other direct fight, ten out of ten encounters will be handled sneakily, which means that with 50% After the vote, the Stealth duo gets 100% of "the most fun approach" (of their PoV), while the other two players and their PCs represent the remaining 50% of the vote, while getting 0% of the preferred approach.

A second disadvantage of this straightforward direct vote is that, although everyone's preferences are stable and known, different issues may still be of different importance to different people. For example, the social can really want to civilly manage the encounter with the imperial satrap, but be much more willing to accept a brute-force solution or an assassination when it comes to dealing with the local pirate captain. Yet a simple and separate vote on each question does not reflect this nuance.

Some would say, "So negotiate, like people in parliament!" This is an improvement over the simple vote. . . in theory. However, I want to reduce the oversights and inflections often associated with promises and negotiations in practice. For that, I'm looking for a way to use auction mechanisms to quantify the relative value of a given choice for a given player and / or character, by adding structure and transparency to those negotiations.

Auction mechanisms as they are currently envisaged

All long-term participants in a group who must constantly make decisions (players or characters) are given an equal number of points. Let's say 10 to each participant (or 100 to each – as long as it's the same number). When the group meets the metaphorical branch of the road, participants can take points in their pools and "drop" them into a "box" that matches a given decision, hoping that the choice of the "box" who has the most points wins. & # 39 ;.

In this way, a person who does not really believe in a decision can spend little or no points, which allows him to have a greater influence on a hypothetical future decision that is subjectively more important. Conversely, a person who is committed to a given decision can do much to help the party choose it now and sacrifice their influence in the future.

Finally, the group of points is supposed to regenerate gradually – p. Ex. 20% of the departure reserve for each big fork of the road encountered. The maximum number of points accumulated can be limited or not.

Nuances of which I am not sure

Some aspects of the process can be handled differently, and I'm not sure of the pros and cons of each way of doing things. I'm going to write a few that I noticed, but I'd like to know who I miss and maybe who I miss. implications I may have disappeared.

• Are everyone's offers visible or only revealed when all offers have been launched? Closed bids appear to be the fastest, but also the most sensitive games, which is a reduction in transparency.
• The points spent on a choice that has been "defeated" by another choice are lost or refunded. Refunds seem intuitively likely to produce a "pendulum" effect, but waivers seem to encourage all-or-nothing bidding.
• Are there several bidding rounds? Obviously, this does not make sense for closed bids. Another trick also encourages all-or-nothing auctions, while multiple risks make the process too long.
• What is the relationship between the seed pool, the pool refresh rate, and the maximum number of points that can be stored in the pool (or the absence of points). If I understand correctly, the rate of regeneration should be roughly comparable to the expected average arithmetic importance of a choice, and I suspect that for optimal performance, the value of the starting reserve should be equal to half of the maximum value. But is there any reason to prefer a given ratio of the starting / maximum pool to the average choice / regeneration value? Intuitively, an uncapped pool seems dangerous because of the hoarding potential, but is it the case – or is it easy to do to automatically correct itself by other function switches? Are there any other advantages or disadvantages of a given size of the pool ceiling or the lack thereof?

I currently think that the best configuration is an auction open to several rounds, and that we look at the refund of lost points.

What answers am I looking for

I am looking for more information on the pros and cons of various auction subsystem configurations or the reasons for choosing specific combinations of features. I am also interested in learning mathematical / mechanical techniques that I may not be aware of that would be useful to me in my quest for a more quantified and transparent approach to nuanced and proportional decision-making.

I am do not looking for vague ideas without mechanical techniques. I do not seek disdainful answers of the type "speak like humans". The arguments to completely abandon the auction method should not be based on emotions, but rather on the fact that it would be overall worse than the simple majority method, which is often a flaw in role play groups ( that it is a CO or an OOC).

## Archive.org downloader. Website uploader. CMS converter

Archive.org downloader. Website uploader. CMS converter

1. ## Archive.org downloader. Website uploader. CMS converter

https://en.archivarix.com/- is a machine downloader back online,
website downloader and CMS converter. It works very simple, just enter
Website URL, download options, your email address and wait a bit.
Content can be downloaded from the system into a zip file and installed
on your server. For content management, we have developed a free Open
CMS Source – This is a small PHP file that does not require any
installation or database. See more details on the CMS here –
https://en.archivarix.com/cms/
What is the purpose of this? First – create your PBN with the unique
content found on Web archives. When analyzing the site, you can set
the parameters necessary for the normal use of the content as a source of
traffic and links. Such as deleting all external links and clickable
contacts, meter removal, advertising and analysis, optimization
HTML code and images. Thanks to the Archivarix CMS, you can easily
manage, search and replace, edit the site with the WYSIWYG editor,
insert your own TDS scripts. It is also possible to work with
any other CMS, for example WordPress on the same domain.
Second, the system can be used to convert websites created in
another CMS or static HTML to Archivarix CMS. It is also possible
remove all external scripts, counters and advertisements (for
example, if the site was on free hosting).
The first 200 downloaded files are provided free of charge. The number
free downloads are not limited. It means that you can restore or download
free, an unlimited number of websites, but within 200 files. In addition,
the price depends on the number of downloaded files, more details here –
https://en.archivarix.com/#show-prices-wbm

#### Authorizations to publish

• You Maybe not post new discussions
• You Maybe not post answers
• You Maybe not post attachments
• You Maybe not edit your posts

.

## simultaneity – the system restarted before the transaction is committed

Consider the following log sequence of two transactions in a bank account, with the initial balance 12000, which transfers 2000 to a mortgage payment and then applies a 5% interest.

``````T1 start
T1 B old = 1200 new = 10000
T1 M old = 0 new = 2000
T1 commit
Beginning T2
T2 B old = 10000 new = 10500
T2 commit
``````

Suppose the database system crashes just before the log 7 record is written. When the system is rebooted, what statement is true of the recovery procedure?

(a) We must redo log record 6 to set B to 10500

(b) We must cancel logging 6 to set B to 10,000, then restore log records 2 and 3

(c) It is not necessary to redo log records 2 and 3 because the T1 transaction has been validated.

(d) We can apply recovery and cancellation operations in an arbitrary order because they are idempotent

In my opinion, the answer should be (a) because the T1 transaction has been validated and written in memory. But my solution says that the answer should be (b).

Am I right or wrong?

Thanks in advance!