## Android Bluetooth pairing limitation – Android Enthusiasts Stack Exchange

There is a 100 device limit in Android for the maximum number of paired Bluetooth devices. This causes problems for my App used for reading the meter status.

Solutions
Multiple solutions to the problem looks possible.

This is then used inside btm_dev.c, specifically in BTM_SecAddDevice which returns false after 100 pairings:
/* There is no device record, allocate one.
* If we can not find an empty spot for this one, let it fail. */
for (i = 0; i < BTM_SEC_MAX_DEVICE_RECORDS; i++)

Query
* If I update the #define BTM_SEC_MAX_DEVICE_RECORDS from 100 to lets say 1000, do I need to build the complete GIS image and install.
* Or, can I only update the BT library?
* Or, any other methods?

## sharepoint online – CSOM Utility.SendEmail() will only send email to office 365 email addressees… is it a limitation?

I have the following code inside my CSOM console application to send email:-

``````static private void sendemail(ClientContext context, string subject, string body, string email)
{
var emailp = new EmailProperties();
emailp.Subject = subject;
emailp.Body = body;
List<string> toUsers = new List<string>();
emailp.To = toUsers;

Utility.SendEmail(context, emailp);
context.ExecuteQuery();
}
``````

now the email will be sent correctly incase the to email is defined inside office 365,otherwise no email will be sent. any idea why?

## Inodes Limitation

I am bit not clear how Inodes limitation works with Reseller Hosting. I am taking Namehero’s limit of 300,000 inodes per reseller account as… | Read the rest of https://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1808500&goto=newpost

## About the limitation of a function

Consider the function $$f: (0, infty) to mathbb R$$ how $$f (y): = int_0 ^ y sqrt {1- text {six} ^ 4 (t)} dt, forall y ge 0$$ .

My question is: is the function $$f$$ limited?

## mysql – UPPERCASE limitation in SQL

You could use one `CHECK` Restriction to force the column to always contain uppercase letters.

I haven't tested this:

``````CREATE TABLE t1
(
c1 VARCHAR(200) CONSTRAINT c1_upper CHECK (BINARY UPPER(c1) = BINARY c1),
/* ... */
);
``````

or for an existing table

``````ALTER TABLE t1
ADD CONSTRAINT c1_upper CHECK (BINARY UPPER(c1) = BINARY c1);
``````

## real analysis – proof of the limitation of a function using the extreme value theorem

Consider a function $$f (s, e)$$The fulfillment of the following property is limited for some finite ones $$L_1$$ and $$L_2$$::
$$begin {equation} | f (s_1, e_1) -f (s_2, e_2) | le L_1 rho (s_1, s_2) + L_2 | e_1-e_2 | _2 end {equation}$$

where it is believed that $$s$$ is scanned from a compact metric space $$(M, rho)$$ and and $$e$$ is a random variable with a limited value $$ell_2$$ Norm, i.e. $$| e | _2 le k$$.

Now I want to show that $$f$$ is limited. I know that we can use the extreme value theorem to show that continuous function is limited in a compact space. I'm not sure I can use this here. The proof sketch is as follows:

• $$f$$ is a Lipschitz continuous function of $$s$$ and $$e$$ so it is continuous.
• Since $$s$$ is taken from a compact room and $$e$$ Since it is a limited Euclidean norm, the extreme value theorem can be used to determine the limitation $$f$$.

## Limitation of \$ | Sigma ^ {- 1/2} (X- mu) | _2 ^ 3 \$ for two-dimensional Bernoulli

To let $$X in {0,1 } ^ 2$$ have in common $$mu = left ( begin {smallmatrix} p_1 \ p_2 end {smallmatrix} right)$$ and $$Pr (X_1 = X_2 = 1) = p$$. We can then calculate the covariance matrix $$Sigma = E ((X- mu) (X- mu) ^ T) = left ( begin {smallmatrix} p_1 (1-p_1) & p-p_1p_2 \ p-p_1p_2 & p_2 (1- p_2) end {smallmatrix} right)$$.

I want to use the berry-food limit, and for that we have to limit the amount $$gamma = | Sigma ^ {- 1/2} (X- mu) | _2 ^ 3$$.

I think you should be able to show it
$$gamma le C left ( tfrac1 { sqrt {p_1 (1-p_1)}} + tfrac1 { sqrt {p_2 (1-p_2)}} + tfrac1 { sqrt { min { p_1, p_2 } – p}} right) ,$$
for a universal constant $$C> 0$$.

The symbolic calculation of $$Sigma ^ {- 1/2}$$ is a bit unwieldy, however, and so I wonder if there are some tricks that can help me achieve this result better?

If not, any evidence would be welcome.

## Category Theory – There is a left module functor \$ F \$ that preserves \$ oplus \$ through arbitrary isomorphism, but its limitation to fin. gen. proj. Modules are not additive?

Are there rings? $$R$$, $$S$$ and a functor $$F: {_ R textbf {Mod}} to {_S textbf {Mod}}$$ so that

1. For everyone $$R$$Modules $$M, N$$, we have $$F (M oplus N) cong F (M) oplus F (N)$$
2. $$F (R)$$ is a finally created, projective left $$S$$-Module,

but if we restrict and restrict $$F$$ to the full sub-category of the projective left $$R$$– respectively. $$S$$Modules that we refer to $$mathcal {P} (R)$$ respectively. $$mathcal {P} (S)$$, then this restricted functor $$F: mathcal {P} (R) to mathcal {P} (S)$$ isn't additive, in the sense that it doesn't keep split exact sequences?

With the help of this forum I found out when $$S$$ has the property that whenever $$M oplus S ^ n cong S ^ n$$ for a left $$S$$-Module $$M$$ and a $$n geq 0$$, then $$M = 0$$ (Let's call that a ring $$S$$ cool), then such a functor $$F$$ as above can not exist. The evidence for this is the answer in this post and the state of very similar $$S$$ Being cool is exactly what makes the proof work in this more general situation. Also note that if $$S$$ is commutative, it's cool, and I suspect that $$S$$ is cool if and only if it is IBN; see this question.

An idea, I had to use the functor $$F$$ constructed in this answer and enter the Abelian group $$FA$$ somehow natural is the structure of e.g. $$operatorname {End} _ { mathbb {N}} ( mathbb {Z} ^ { oplus mathbb {N}})$$ Module so that $$F mathbb {Z}$$ is finally generated and free, but maybe this approach is too optimistic.

## Unity – Limitation Swing 1 and 2 limit the joints asymmetrically

I want to create a game object that resembles the creatures shown here. A `CharacterJoint` is perfect for me, but I can't find a way to asymmetrically limit Swing 1 and Swing 2, which is easily possible for the twist limit.

One approach I tried was writing a script that rotates the body beforehand and then adds the joint. That didn't work for me and I was wondering if there is an easy way to do this that I miss. If not, I'll add the script to my question.

## Limitation of \$ chi _ { {f_n = 0 }} \$ in the BV standard

To let $$f_n in H ^ 2 ( Omega) cap C ^ 0 ( bar Omega)$$ be a series of functions that are uniformly limited $$H ^ 2 ( Omega) cap C ^ 0 ( bar Omega)$$ on a smoothly delimited domain $$Omega subset mathbb {R} ^ n$$ With $$n leq 3$$.

I would like to know whether the characteristic functions of the zero level are set
$$chi _ { {f_n = 0 }} (x) = begin {case} 1: f_n (x) = 0 \ 0: f_n (x) neq 0 end {cases}$$
are so that $$chi _ { {f_n = 0 }}$$ is evenly limited in $$n$$ in the BV room.

The problem is clearly to show that the BV seminar standard is limited. I tried to use the semarea formula to rewrite the seminar norm with regard to the scope of the level sets assigned to the function $$chi _ { {f_n = 0 }}$$and the problem is reduced (unless I made a mistake) to showing this
$$sup _ { phi in C_c ^ 1 ( Omega) ^ n, | phi | leq 1} int _ { {f_n = 0 }} nabla cdot phi$$
is uniformly limited $$n$$, but I couldn't go on.

I also know that $$f_n geq 0$$ a.e. and $$chi _ { {f_n = 0 }}$$ weakly converges to an element in $$L ^ infty ( Omega)$$ (not necessarily another characteristic function).