pattern matching – Delete cases using two lists but with partial match?

I searched and tried different solutions in SE but nothing worked.

I have two lists and I would like to delete the items in list1 that have a PARTIAL match with the items in list2. I am new at this.

I tried this but it did not leak anything

Select[List1, ! MemberQ[List2, #] &]

I also tried with DeleteCases and StringMatchQ but I only got several errors. I tried some SE solutions but none worked for my specific case.

list1 = {"", "", "tel: 5559986644", "mailto:"}

list2 = {"tel:", "mailto:"}

results = {"", ""}

Thanks in advance

pde – Demonstrating the existence and uniqueness of the partial integro-differential equation.

I am working on a type (shown below) of partial nonlinear integral-differential equation with conformable fractional derivative,

$ Τ_t ^ α u (x, t) = g (x, t) + u (x, t) + Ι_t ^ α Ι_x ^ α 〖(u (x, t))〗 ^ p, (x, t) ∈[0,1]×[0,L], α∈ (1 / 2,1), $

with the initial condition
$ u (x, 0) = b (x), $

where $ x, t $ they are independent variables, $ u (x, t) $ it's an unknown function, $ g (x, t), b (x) $ they are known functions, $ p≥1 $ it's a positive integer, $ T ^ α $ It is the conformable fractional derivative of order. $ Y $ I ^ α $ is the $-integral.

I want to prove the existence and uniqueness of this equation through Banach's fixed point theorem and my main question here is what rule should I take to make the test.
Any help would be appreciated

Properties of the PSD matrix partial ordering

For symmetric PSD matrices. $ A $ Y $ B $It is true that $ A succeq B iff DA succeq DB $ for any positive definite diagonal matrix $ D $?

How could this be proved or refuted?

here $ A succeq B $ medium $ A-B $ it's PSD

AWS: Are the EC2 spot instances charged for partial hours canceled by Amazon?

I'm seeing contradictory information in the AWS documentation. I wonder specifically about the termination initiated by Amazon after the first hour

Frequently asked questions

If the Spot instance is terminated or stopped by Amazon EC2 at any
Later, you will be charged for its use to the nearest
second. If you are running on Windows and the instance ends
yourself, you will be charged for an entire hour.

From the article on how punctual instances work.

If you cancel your instance, you will pay for any partial hour used (such as
it does it for instances on demand or reserved). However, you are not
It is charged for any partial hour of use if the Spot price rises above
Your maximum price and Amazon EC2 interrupts your Spot instance.

So, are we charged for part-time usage of the EC2 Spot instance that ends with Amazon? Does anyone know from experience?

differential geometry – $ bar { partial} + bar { partial} ^ * $ is the Dirac Operator (Dirac-Dolbeault)

How is it $ bar { partial} + bar { partial} ^ * $ The operator of Dirac? The ncatlab declares this fact with a reference, but this reference is more complicated than necessary. The statement is on a multiple Kahler basis $ X $. Well, let's take the simplest one. $ X = mathbb {R} ^ 4 $ with orientation $ dx_1 wedge dx_2 wedge dx_3 wedge dx_4 $ and metric $ dx_1 ^ 2 + dx_2 ^ 2 + dx_3 ^ 2 + dx_4 ^ 2 $.

Return package $ S = mathbb {C} ^ 2 oplus mathbb {C} ^ 2 $ with the Dirac operator $ D: Gamma (S) to Gamma (S) $,
$ begin {align} D = begin {pmatrix} 0 & frac { partial} { partial x_4} + sum_ {i = 1} ^ 3 i sigma_j frac { partial} { partial x_j} \ frac { partial} { partial x_4} – sum_ {i = 1} ^ 3 i sigma_j frac { partial} { partial x_j} & 0 end {pmatrix} end {align} $. the $ sigma_j $ They are matrices of pauli.

I get it $ bar { partial} ^ ast $ be $ – ast bar { partial} ast $. How is it $ D $ equal to $ bar { partial} + bar { partial} ^ * $?

Actual analysis: show that $ frac { partial x} { partial and} frac { partial and} { partial z} frac { partial z} { partial x} = -1 $

Yes $ f (x, y, z) = 0 $ Y $ frac { partial f} { partial x}, frac { partial f} { partial y}, frac { partial f} { partial z} neq 0 $, show that

$$ frac { partial x} { partial y} frac { partial and} { partial z} frac { partial z} { partial x} = -1 $$

I understand that posting questions without showing your work is frowned upon. I just could not find anything.

Using partial derivatives to find the normal vector.

So, I can not find out what I am doing wrong with this question, even if my life depended on it. I know how to do it, but I can not seem to understand what I'm doing wrong. Because I refuse to believe that normal is (-0.1292, -0.1292, 0) unless someone here confirms it. Everything seems to be working without problems until the creation of the tangent plane, which is where my suspicion lies at this moment.

This is the problem:

Given the function $$ f (x, y) = e ^ {- (x ^ 2 + y ^ 2)} $$
to use $ f left ( frac {1} {2}, frac {1} {2} right) $ and it's partial derivatives to find a normal vector for $ f (x, y) $ on the point $ left ( frac {1} {2}, frac {1} {2} right) $

Any help to help me understand is very appreciated. Thanks in advance.

partial derivative: particle that moves along the unit circle centered on the origin of the xy plane

A particle moves along the unit circle centered on the origin of the xy plane. Find the address of $ nabla times mathbf v $.

My intent:

I found that $ displaystyle frac { partial v_x} { partial and}> 0 $ Y $ displaystyle frac { partial v_y} { partial x} <0 $. As $ v_z equiv 0 $, its partial derivatives with respect to $ x $ Y $ and $ They are also zero. But how do I find the signs of $ displaystyle frac { partial v_x} { partial z} $ Y $ displaystyle frac { partial v_y} { partial z} $?

Databases – Doubts about the definition of partial functional dependency.

I have some doubts about the definition of partial functional dependency.
According to the book Fundamentals of Database Systems by Elmasri and Navathe.
The definition of partial functional dependency is

A functional dependency X -> Y is a partial dependency if some attribute belonging to X can be eliminated from X and the dependency is still maintained; that is, for some A it belongs to X (X – {A}) -> Y.

Now, on many websites on the Internet and even teachers in my class are saying the following definition of partial functional dependency.

Partial dependence is a type of functional dependency that occurs when one of the non-principal attributes is dependent on the subset / part of the candidates key.

Now, the problem occurs when a question is asked so

Let R (A, B, C, D, E) be a relational schema where {A, B} is a candidate key, so the functional dependence B-> C is a partial dependency or not.

According to the definition in the book, B-> C is not a partial dependency, but according to the teachers of my class, B-> C is a partial functional dependency.

So, which one is correct?

pr.probabilidad – Regularity of pdf of partial sums of Birkhoff

Suppose that $ T: X to X $ It is a map measurable in a variety of Riemann $ X $ (possibly with limit). Leave $ mu $ denotes the Riemannian measure on $ X $. For measurable, of real value. $ g $ We can consider the partial sums of Birkhoff $ S_n: = sum_ {k = 0} ^ {n-1} g circ T ^ k $.
I am specifically interested in the case where $ T $ It has a certain hyperbolicity eg. $ T $ it could be pieces $ mathcal {C} ^ 2 $ expanding the map in $[0,1]$, or a $ mathcal {C} ^ 2 $ Map of anosov in $ mathbb {T} ^ 2 $. As well, $ g $ It can be as regular as necessary.

Yes $ g $ Y $ T $ have enough regularity, then $ S_n $ has a probability density function $ f_n $. My question is if someone has studied the regularity of $ f_n $: under what conditions does $ f_n & # 39; $ exists, and what can we say about it as $ n a infty $. If we define Fischer's information $ S_n $ be
I (S_n) = int _ { mathbb {R}} left[frac{mathrm{d}}{mathrm{d}x} log f_nright]^ 2 f_n (x) , mathrm {d} x,

we can say yes $ I (S_n) $ Is finite? If so, can we say something about the growth of $ I (S_n) $ as $ n a infty $?