Function of fractions in NPs + form of subsequent verb

I have two questions about the clause three thirds of the book deals with WWII:

i) how do we analyse the subject of this clause from a syntactic point of view? I’d analyse it as a NP, with the following internal structure: three (determiner [numeral]) thirds (head [noun]) of the book (postmodifier [PP]). Is this correct, or should it be analysed in a different way, and in that case, how?

ii) if the analysis suggested in (i) is correct, then why do we have the singular form on the verb (deals)?

Thanks!

How does V838 Monocerotis look today? Any subsequent light echo images, or is the party over?

This answer to the question V838 Monocerotis “light-echo” images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images? contains the following information below. There are other answers and more images there, so it’s recommended to enjoy there as well.

Question: What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the party over?

See also Why weren’t the Hubble light-echo images of V838 Monocerotis supplemented by ground telescopes?



The V838 Monocerotis expansion (not a supernova) and the observation of the subsequent “spectacular” light echo was quite a notable event! From Nature 422, 405-408 (27 March 2003)

Nature Coverenter image description here

From Astronom. J. 135, 2, 2008 or ArXiv

.Galactic light echoes are extremely rare. The only other known example of extent similar to that of V838 Mon was the echo produced by Nova GK Persei 1901 (Kapteyn 1902; Perrine 1902; Ritchey 1902). Following early misunderstandings, light-echo geometry was properly described by Couderc (1939), and more recent discussions are given by many authors, including Chevalier (1986), Felten (1991), Sparks (1994), Sugerman (2003), and references therein“.

It was the sole topic of an international conference photo from here:

Conference
Figure 2 of the Nature paper describes the preservation of the actual light curve (history) within the structure of the light-echo shell:

enter image description here

FIGURE 2. HST images of the light echoes
The apparently superluminal expansion of the echoes as light from the outburst propagates outward into surrounding dust is shown dramatically. Images were taken in 2002 on 30 April (a), 20 May (b), 2 September (c) and 28 October (d). Each frame is 83″ times 83″; north is up and east to the left. Imaging on 30 April was obtained only in the B filter, but B, V and I were used on the other three dates, allowing us to make full-colour renditions. The time evolution of the stellar outburst (Fig. 1) is reflected by structures visible in these colour images. In b, for example, note the series of rings and filamentary structures, especially in the upper right quadrant. Close examination shows that each set of rings has a sharp, blue outer edge, a dip in intensity nearer the star, and then a rebrightening to a redder plateau. Similar replicas of the outburst light curve are seen propagating outwards throughout all of the colour images.”

also see: This is an artificially constructed animation, morphing eight existing images to suggest what a higher cadence imaging campaign might have seen: https://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic0617a/

In v1.5.2, are transactions based on the call to `getTransactionsToApprove` included in subsequent calls to…

In the new IRI version 1.5.2, a call to getTransactionsToApprove provides a set of transactions that can be used as the trunk and branch of a new transaction.

Given that some of the returned tips barely meets the minimum Milestone depth requirement, maxdepth minus one let’s say, then when it is used in a subsequent new transaction Tn, that transaction will no longer meet the minimum requirement.

Would Tn have its Milestone reference set too deep to be considered as a valid response to a subsequent getTransactionsToApprove?

Am I missing something here or is this a flaw in the new system?

How does V838 Monocerotis look today? Any subsequent light echo images, or is the party over?

This answer to the question V838 Monocerotis “light-echo” images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images? contains the following information below. There are other answers and more images there, so it’s recommended to enjoy there as well.

Question: What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the party over?

See also Why weren’t the Hubble light-echo images of V838 Monocerotis supplemented by ground telescopes?



The V838 Monocerotis expansion (not a supernova) and the observation of the subsequent “spectacular” light echo was quite a notable event! From Nature 422, 405-408 (27 March 2003)

Nature Coverenter image description here

From Astronom. J. 135, 2, 2008 or ArXiv

.Galactic light echoes are extremely rare. The only other known example of extent similar to that of V838 Mon was the echo produced by Nova GK Persei 1901 (Kapteyn 1902; Perrine 1902; Ritchey 1902). Following early misunderstandings, light-echo geometry was properly described by Couderc (1939), and more recent discussions are given by many authors, including Chevalier (1986), Felten (1991), Sparks (1994), Sugerman (2003), and references therein“.

It was the sole topic of an international conference photo from here:

Conference
Figure 2 of the Nature paper describes the preservation of the actual light curve (history) within the structure of the light-echo shell:

enter image description here

FIGURE 2. HST images of the light echoes
The apparently superluminal expansion of the echoes as light from the outburst propagates outward into surrounding dust is shown dramatically. Images were taken in 2002 on 30 April (a), 20 May (b), 2 September (c) and 28 October (d). Each frame is 83″ times 83″; north is up and east to the left. Imaging on 30 April was obtained only in the B filter, but B, V and I were used on the other three dates, allowing us to make full-colour renditions. The time evolution of the stellar outburst (Fig. 1) is reflected by structures visible in these colour images. In b, for example, note the series of rings and filamentary structures, especially in the upper right quadrant. Close examination shows that each set of rings has a sharp, blue outer edge, a dip in intensity nearer the star, and then a rebrightening to a redder plateau. Similar replicas of the outburst light curve are seen propagating outwards throughout all of the colour images.”

also see: This is an artificially constructed animation, morphing eight existing images to suggest what a higher cadence imaging campaign might have seen: https://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic0617a/

How do subsequent steps follow? (Divergence and partial derivatives)

Let $(x,y)$ evolve to $(X,Y)$ under the velocity field $vec v=(u,v)$ in time $t$. Thus, $$X=X(x,y,t), Y=Y(x,y,t), t=t$$
Then, $$J(x,y,t)=
begin{bmatrix}
frac{partial X}{partial x} &
frac{partial X}{partial y} &
frac{partial X}{partial t} \[1ex] % <-- 1ex more space between rows of matrix frac{partial Y}{partial x} & frac{partial Y}{partial y} & frac{partial Y}{partial t} \[1ex] frac{partial t}{partial x} & frac{partial t}{partial y} & frac{partial t}{partial t} end{bmatrix}$$

$$=begin{bmatrix}
frac{partial X}{partial x} &
frac{partial X}{partial y}\[1ex]
frac{partial Y}{partial x} &
frac{partial Y}{partial y}
end{bmatrix}$$

Now $frac{partial J}{partial t}=frac{partial u}{partial x}frac{partial Y}{partial y}+frac{partial X}{partial x}frac{partial v}{partial y}-frac{partial u}{partial y}frac{partial Y}{partial x}-frac{partial X}{partial y}frac{partial v}{partial x}$.

Thus, $frac{partial J}{partial t}$ is the trace of matrix $begin{bmatrix}
frac{partial u}{partial x} &
frac{partial u}{partial y}\[1ex]
frac{partial v}{partial x} &
frac{partial v}{partial y}
end{bmatrix}.begin{bmatrix}
frac{partial Y}{partial y} &
-frac{partial X}{partial y}\[1ex]
-frac{partial Y}{partial x} &
frac{partial X}{partial x}
end{bmatrix}=begin{bmatrix}
frac{partial u}{partial X} &
frac{partial u}{partial Y}\[1ex]
frac{partial v}{partial X} &
frac{partial v}{partial Y}
end{bmatrix}.J(x,y,t)$

Therefore, $frac{partial J}{partial t}=(nabla.vec v)J$.

Now how did the steps after “trace of matrix” conclude? Also, why are we taking gradient with respect to $X,Y$ and not $x,y$ in the last step?

In v1.5.2, are transactions based on the call to `getTransactionsToApprove` included in subsequent calls to…

In the new IRI version 1.5.2, a call to getTransactionsToApprove provides a set of transactions that can be used as the trunk and branch of a new transaction.

Given that some of the returned tips barely meets the minimum Milestone depth requirement, maxdepth minus one let’s say, then when it is used in a subsequent new transaction Tn, that transaction will no longer meet the minimum requirement.

Would Tn have its Milestone reference set too deep to be considered as a valid response to a subsequent getTransactionsToApprove?

Am I missing something here or is this a flaw in the new system?

What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the…

This answer to the question V838 Monocerotis “light-echo” images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images? contains the following information below. There are other answers and more images there, so it’s recommended to enjoy there as well.

Question: What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the party over?

See also Why weren’t the Hubble light-echo images of V838 Monocerotis supplemented by ground telescopes?



The V838 Monocerotis expansion (not a supernova) and the observation of the subsequent “spectacular” light echo was quite a notable event! From Nature 422, 405-408 (27 March 2003)

Nature Coverenter image description here

From Astronom. J. 135, 2, 2008 or ArXiv

.Galactic light echoes are extremely rare. The only other known example of extent similar to that of V838 Mon was the echo produced by Nova GK Persei 1901 (Kapteyn 1902; Perrine 1902; Ritchey 1902). Following early misunderstandings, light-echo geometry was properly described by Couderc (1939), and more recent discussions are given by many authors, including Chevalier (1986), Felten (1991), Sparks (1994), Sugerman (2003), and references therein“.

It was the sole topic of an international conference photo from here:

Conference
Figure 2 of the Nature paper describes the preservation of the actual light curve (history) within the structure of the light-echo shell:

enter image description here

FIGURE 2. HST images of the light echoes
The apparently superluminal expansion of the echoes as light from the outburst propagates outward into surrounding dust is shown dramatically. Images were taken in 2002 on 30 April (a), 20 May (b), 2 September (c) and 28 October (d). Each frame is 83″ times 83″; north is up and east to the left. Imaging on 30 April was obtained only in the B filter, but B, V and I were used on the other three dates, allowing us to make full-colour renditions. The time evolution of the stellar outburst (Fig. 1) is reflected by structures visible in these colour images. In b, for example, note the series of rings and filamentary structures, especially in the upper right quadrant. Close examination shows that each set of rings has a sharp, blue outer edge, a dip in intensity nearer the star, and then a rebrightening to a redder plateau. Similar replicas of the outburst light curve are seen propagating outwards throughout all of the colour images.”

In v1.5.2, are transactions based on the call to `getTransactionsToApprove` included in subsequent calls to…

In the new IRI version 1.5.2, a call to getTransactionsToApprove provides a set of transactions that can be used as the trunk and branch of a new transaction.

Given that some of the returned tips barely meets the minimum Milestone depth requirement, maxdepth minus one let’s say, then when it is used in a subsequent new transaction Tn, that transaction will no longer meet the minimum requirement.

Would Tn have its Milestone reference set too deep to be considered as a valid response to a subsequent getTransactionsToApprove?

Am I missing something here or is this a flaw in the new system?

What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the…

This answer to the question V838 Monocerotis “light-echo” images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images? contains the following information below. There are other answers and more images there, so it’s recommended to enjoy there as well.

Question: What does V838 Monocerotis look like today? Have there been subsequent light echo image sequences, or is the party over?

See also Why weren’t the Hubble light-echo images of V838 Monocerotis supplemented by ground telescopes?



The V838 Monocerotis expansion (not a supernova) and the observation of the subsequent “spectacular” light echo was quite a notable event! From Nature 422, 405-408 (27 March 2003)

Nature Coverenter image description here

From Astronom. J. 135, 2, 2008 or ArXiv

.Galactic light echoes are extremely rare. The only other known example of extent similar to that of V838 Mon was the echo produced by Nova GK Persei 1901 (Kapteyn 1902; Perrine 1902; Ritchey 1902). Following early misunderstandings, light-echo geometry was properly described by Couderc (1939), and more recent discussions are given by many authors, including Chevalier (1986), Felten (1991), Sparks (1994), Sugerman (2003), and references therein“.

It was the sole topic of an international conference photo from here:

Conference
Figure 2 of the Nature paper describes the preservation of the actual light curve (history) within the structure of the light-echo shell:

enter image description here

FIGURE 2. HST images of the light echoes
The apparently superluminal expansion of the echoes as light from the outburst propagates outward into surrounding dust is shown dramatically. Images were taken in 2002 on 30 April (a), 20 May (b), 2 September (c) and 28 October (d). Each frame is 83″ times 83″; north is up and east to the left. Imaging on 30 April was obtained only in the B filter, but B, V and I were used on the other three dates, allowing us to make full-colour renditions. The time evolution of the stellar outburst (Fig. 1) is reflected by structures visible in these colour images. In b, for example, note the series of rings and filamentary structures, especially in the upper right quadrant. Close examination shows that each set of rings has a sharp, blue outer edge, a dip in intensity nearer the star, and then a rebrightening to a redder plateau. Similar replicas of the outburst light curve are seen propagating outwards throughout all of the colour images.”

How can we re-enter South Africa after an overstay and subsequent refused entry?

My children and I are Swiss expats living in Botswana.

Easter holiday, April 2017, we went to Durban and, unfortunately, were only given 7 days but stayed for 10. The immigration officer stamped our passport and gave us a Section 30(1)h notice.

I did appeal but never got a reply.

This week, October 2018, we were refused entry and our passports were stamped 27(3), with no explanation given.

I have tried all numbers and emails found on the internet with no success at all.

I need help as I need to renew our Swiss passports in Pretoria.