Require relationship for this business rule

Many games are played every year at each university; but a game between any two universities is played in a certain place only once a year.

The information collected about a game includes the final score, attendance and game date. A team is identified by the name of the university. Other attributes of the team include the current classification, the capacity of the local court and the number of players.

Is the ERD correct for the team and the game? It's possible?

(the team is considered as a university in this context)

enter the description of the image here

how to enable Rule to StringReplace

This is a non-viable code to test if the support is legal:

("(({{(())}})" //. {"{}" -> "", "()" -> "", "()" -> ""}) == ""

I want to know what to do Rule have the same effect as StringReplace

Remove a CSS rule from the custom taxonomy

I have a universal CSS rule in my style sheet like this:

#page.grid-parent {
  padding-left: 20px;
  padding-right: 20px

What I would like to do is DELETE that rule from some custom taxonomy file pages that I have.

So, if I look at the Body tag from an example page I see this:

I am sure that I can use the "fiscal country" as the hook to hide that CSS rule.

To hide the CSS rule of those pages I tried this: {
  padding-left: 0px;
  padding-right: 0px

… and it didn't work …

I also tried to use the # tax country ID like this:

#tax-country.grid-parent {
  padding-left: 0px;
  padding-right: 0px;

And there is still no joy …

Convert the Nginx reverse proxy rule to the IIS rewrite rule

What would be the IIS web.config rewrite rule for the next Nginx reverse proxy rule?

location ^~ /subdirectory/ {
  proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
  proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-For $proxy_add_x_forwarded_for;
  proxy_set_header X-Forwarded-Proto $scheme;

I need to add it to the following set of rules in a web.config


Rule based on the Azure application gateway route that points to a different route in the server group

Is it possible to configure Azure Application Gateway to have a Path-based rule that points to a different virtual directory in the back-end group?

I would like my portal to listen /gatewayapi/* and redirect the request to my backend group as /backendapi/*

derivatives – Chain rule for vectors

I am struggling to understand the chain rule for vectors. Suppose I have two functions $ f: mathbb {R} ^ m rightarrow mathbb {R} $ Y $ g: mathbb {R} ^ m rightarrow mathbb {R} ^ m $;

It is true that:

$$ frac { delta f (x)} { delta x} = frac { delta f (x)} { delta g (x)} frac { delta g (x)} { delta x } $$

Where to $ frac { delta a (x)} { delta b} $ is the matrix with $ frac { partial a_ {i} (x)} { partial b_j} $ in its $ (i, j) th $ element. (The subscript here denotes the element, that is $ a_3 $ is he $ 3 ^ r $ element of $ to $) Could anyone give some insight as to why this is the case if so?

Lighttpd server freezes after rewriting rule settings

I tried adding mod rewrite rules at the bottom of lighttpd.conf after the server.modules code section, this way

server.modules = ( 

url.rewrite = (
    "^/(.*).(.+)$" => "$0",
    "^/(.+)/?$" => "/index.php/$1"

But this causes a server freeze, and is not even able to register any error, everything just stops responding.

Without the following block of code:

url.rewrite = (
    "^/(.*).(.+)$" => "$0",
    "^/(.+)/?$" => "/index.php/$1"

Everything works as supposed.

This is the first time I try to use url rewrite with lighttpd, usually in Apache I use .htaccess in the website directory for these operations (but in lighttpd it seems not compatible at all), so I'm probably doing something wrong.

testability: rule of inference based on conjectures like the Riemann hypothesis.

When I studied mathematics about fifty years ago, I was surprised by the small amount of inference rules that were actually used to prove theorems: modus ponens, reductio ad absurdum and tertium non datur, as I recall. Kurt Gödel seemed to be of the same opinion:

The class of demonstrable formulas is defined as the smallest class of
formulas that contain the axioms and are closed under the relationship
& # 39; Immediate consequence & # 39 ;, that is, the formula c of a and b defined as
immediate consequence in terms of modus ponens or substitution.

(Kurt Gödel in: Jean van Heijenoort, 1976, "From Frege to Gödel: A SourceBook in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931", p. 601, Harvard University Press.)

But due to Wikipedia, the derivation rule proves theorems.
$$ ((R to T) wedge ( neg R to T)) to T $$
where $ R $ is the Riemann hypothesis and $ T $ It is the theorem.

Is this unique to the Riemann hypothesis or the mathematics developed to catalyze proofs of some theorems, or are there other non-trivial examples of derivation rules based on conjectures appropriate for proofs of certain theorems?

propositional calculation – Rule of substitution in logic

I am reading a logic book by Tarski and he says:

"Substitution rule: If a universal sentence, which has already been accepted as true, contains sentence variables, and if these variables are replaced by other oral variables, by oral functions or by sentences — always replacing the same expression with a given variable—, then the prayer obtained in this way can also be recognized as true. "

"When we want to apply the substitution rule, we omit the quantifier and substitute the variables that were previously linked by this quantifier, other related variables or compound expressions, any other united variable that may occur in the sentence function must remain unchanged, and in the expressions we cannot accept any variable that has the same form as the joined ones; finally, if necessary, a universal quantifier is established in front of the expression obtained in this way, to turn it into a sentence ".

Then proceed with an example:

"applying the substitution rule to the sentence:
for any number x there is a number and such that x + y = 5
The following sentence can be obtained:
for any number z there is a number and such that z² + y = 5 "

How is this possible? Isn't it wrong "z²" since it says "always substituting the same expression for a given variable at all times"?

dnd 5e – How do we deal with my DM house rule about critical damage?

In the campaign I am playing in, our DM has established a house rule for critical damage. Then we do it

maximum damage for a dice game, roll the second game and add modifiers at the end

instead of the typical rule of twice the dice and modifiers at the end (PHB p. 196).

Example with an L1 Guide pin spell out:

  • regular critic = 4d6 + 4d6, average of 28
  • Critic of the house rule = 4 × 6 + 4d6, average of 38

It's great when you land a critic on the creature and it's fun and exciting. But, when a creature lands a critic with a special attack or a spell on one of us. You can easily eliminate one of us in one fell swoop. And much less damage of area of ​​effect! It is exciting and stressful. I really enjoy it, but I am the main healer. So, I regularly think: "Who will be next to blow up your clogs?" On one occasion I had the impression that the boss we were facing was going to have a final mortal movement before he died, he did. There was a massive explosion of energy and someone close was killed. Luckily I had run into a corner of the room at the same time and it was out of reach. The whole party was erased but the muggins.

What I am looking for is a way to thwart the critical damage against our group, if it exists.

I am do not looking for the obvious! We are already working to increase our HP groups, using temporary HP, reducing overall damage, increasing AC / save and having emergency supplies, spells and scrolls. We are also working together better, more tactically, doing things like expanding and not getting online when possible.

Is there any way to prevent a creature from causing critical damage in a natural 20? Or, is there a characteristic or class feat that specifically avoids critical damage?