DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: DarkLord_Lalinc on July 15, 2009, 06:50:43 PM
-
I love math, and I always have. Am I the only person on earth that loves LaPlace transformations and differential equations? Share your love for mathematics here, whether it be Arithmetics, Geometry, Algebra, Calculus, etc. :D
-
I like math, but I'm not enough of a hard worker to understand most of it.
-
I dislike it.
-
To all the members of the Math Lovers Club:
You sicken me.
-
I am kinda neutral on math, but I'm really happy I finally found a thread where I feel safe my girlfriend won't see what I post.
-
To all the members of the Math Lovers Club:
You sicken me.
I'm going to hunt you down in your nightmares.
-
To all the members of the Math Lovers Club:
You sicken me.
I'm going to hunt you down in your nightmares.
I will hide behind a book of literature. You know, something not requiring a math fetish to understand.
-
Math is a useful tool.
(https://fandigunawan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/25836743211406lzo8-thumb.jpg)
-
Math is a useful tool.
(https://fandigunawan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/25836743211406lzo8-thumb.jpg)
Or I could just ask her out. :3
-
I can enjoy it if I don't find it meaningless.
-
(https://www.thealarmclock.com/euro/images/findX.gif)
(https://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/peter.jpg)
(https://michoacano.com.mx/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/study-fail.jpg)
(https://www.ozpolitic.com/funny/photos/graph.jpg)
Math is great ;D.
-
One of the coolest shapes in math:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)
(https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3017/800pxmandelbrotsetwithc.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif)
-
:hefdaddy :hefdaddy :hefdaddy
-
eiπ + 1 = 0
I remember when i learned why this is true.
-
Math is a useful tool.
(https://fandigunawan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/25836743211406lzo8-thumb.jpg)
Funny, but it would be better and more reasonable if Money was the root of all evil, and evil was ~ (about) problems.
That way the end would be that women are ~ problems.
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
-
I am kinda neutral on math, but I'm really happy I finally found a thread where I feel safe my girlfriend won't see what I post.
hey i read that :P
-
Math is a useful tool.
(https://fandigunawan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/25836743211406lzo8-thumb.jpg)
*head explodes*
-
I use math everyday (I study economics in graduate school) but recently I have become very interested in math by itself, and I plan to dedicate the next years to study the subject seriously (yes, I don´t have neither a job nor a girlfriend :P) and maybe earning a degree in math. I have bought some books and I´ll start with those.
I still don´t have the knowledge to be able to discuss anything of importance and I don´t have a natural talent for math, but for what I´ve learned, number theory, real analysis, algebraic geometry and game theory seem more attractive to me. I´m not specially fond of differential equations even though I have used them a lot, I just don´t find them that interesting. I´m more inclined to the most abstract part of mathematics or those areas that exhibit an especial elegance or beauty.
/nerd
-
Algebraic Geometry is amazing. I love the study of the conics and how you're able to represent any geometric expression with algebra.
-
eiπ
Is it just me or does that say "Iain"?
Math sucks but I have to use it for my course :millahhhh
P.S. https://www91.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=n00b
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
No.
My major is math related (high school math teacher). I get to take Calculus 3 and Applied Linear Algebra this fall. I would've taken Modern Geometries and Differential Equations 1 if they had offered it. >:(
Math is love, for me. I'm attracted to its objective nature, and its formulaic devices and methods. It always works, and if for some reason a method shows that something doesn't work (such as sequences and series tests), it's still by the process of elimination through mathematical means, not a failed formula.
Integrals are my more recent favorite to mess around with.
I tend to forget the names of some concepts in mathematics if I haven't used them in a while (talking about stuff from high school or college classes some years ago). Stuff like matrices and other things that don't get used a lot in upper levels of math. I need to review that stuff since I'm going to be tutoring soon...
-
Lol, I thought the thread title said "Man Lovers" club at first...
...not that theres anything wrogn with that :-X
-
Calculus is wonderful.
That is all.
-
Calculus is wonderful.
That is all.
I officially love on you. *loves on you*
Edit: 11111th post in a math thread. Oh, the ironing. :loser:
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
No, it falls apart at the last Equals sign.
sqrt((-1)2) = -1 seems intuitive at first, but it's second degree, and you simplify under the radical first, so all it's really saying is that -1 is one of the square roots of 1. The other of course is 1, and there's no rule that says the roots must be equal.
-
the concept of limit is vey cool, especially when you learn the rules to take the derivative of different types of functions and understand how they proceed from the general formula of the limit.
Understanding the concepts beneath a Lagrangian (for a maximization problem) and the envelope theorem that make them work took me a great deal of effort, but it was rewarding.
Math is love, for me. I'm attracted to its objective nature, and its formulaic devices and methods. It always works, and if for some reason a method shows that something doesn't work (such as sequences and series tests), it's still by the process of elimination through mathematical means, not a failed formula.
Very well said!
-
I liked math in high school. But I really suck at the math they teach in uni, damn this is some hard stuff :(.
-
Calculus is wonderful.
That is all.
I officially love on you. *loves on you*
Edit: 11111th post in a math thread. Oh, the ironing. :loser:
You made a wise choice
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
No, it falls apart at the last Equals sign.
sqrt((-1)2) = -1 seems intuitive at first, but it's second degree, and you simplify under the radical first, so all it's really saying is that -1 is one of the square roots of 1. The other of course is 1, and there's no rule that says the roots must be equal.
XianL even used the fact that (-1)˛=1 in the second step.
-
Thank you bob. :tup
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
No, it falls apart at the last Equals sign.
sqrt((-1)2) = -1 seems intuitive at first, but it's second degree, and you simplify under the radical first, so all it's really saying is that -1 is one of the square roots of 1. The other of course is 1, and there's no rule that says the roots must be equal.
XianL even used the fact that (-1)˛=1 in the second step.
I knew I shouldn't have posted that in a "Math Lovers" thread. Why did I think no one would call me out on it? :lol
-
Anyone up for some "1,99.. = 2"?
-
I was gonna say, who here remembers the .999... = 1 thread. I think it was all the way back on dt.net, and it was epic :lol
-
It was also on the MP forum.
-
.999... = 1 because 1/9 = .1111.... and 1/9*9 = 1 and .1111.... and .1111....*9 = .9999, therefore making .999...=1.
I love that rule.
-
I was also a fan of
.999... = X
9.999... = 10X
-.999... = -X
9 = 9X
X = 1
-
I like that way. I was just going by memory.
I forgot that you love math, brother. Yay. :laugh:
-
I like proving that the difference between 0.99.. and 1 is 0.
-
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = sqrt((-1)2) = -1
amiright? ;D
No, it falls apart at the last Equals sign.
sqrt((-1)2) = -1 seems intuitive at first, but it's second degree, and you simplify under the radical first, so all it's really saying is that -1 is one of the square roots of 1. The other of course is 1, and there's no rule that says the roots must be equal.
XianL even used the fact that (-1)˛=1 in the second step.
True, but that was a legitimate substitution. It was the reduction at the end that was illegal.
-
Yep, square root of 1 is positive OR negative 1.
-
Math Rock?
-
Mute Math (awesome band)
-
I've failed math every year I've had it and all my teachers have been pretty bad, on top of it. They were all douchebags and couldn't teach for shit, I can't think of one math teacher that I didn't get into at least 5 heated arguments over the course of the year.
I think if I had a legit teacher I can do well but at this point, I hate the subject more than anything.
-
It's "maths".
-
It's culture you arrogant jerk. :-*
-
It's "maths".
-
eiπ + 1 = 0
I remember when i learned why this is true.
I :heart Euler's identity.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/e_to_the_pi_times_i.png)
-
Bump. Just because the Limit when x-->infinity of (x + 1/x)^x equals e.
-
Good timing, I start my semester tomorrow, and every class has to do with math (some are math, some are math-related like tutoring and math technology).
I can't wait!
-
You know, I have a love/hate relationship with math.
Right now I'm loving how easy it is to derive and integrate hyperbolic trigonometric functions!
-
I have an Algebraic Models class, which has to do with all the math related for computer design (proper integrals, Geometry, conics, Differential Equations, etc.) and Calculus once again. It should be easy and great :D
-
You know, I have a love/hate relationship with math.
Right now I'm loving how easy it is to derive and integrate hyperbolic trigonometric functions!
'Tis indeed easy, that's good and friendly calculus. Vectors and polarities are not so friendly. CURSE YOU F(x,y,z), CURSE YOU
-
Yeah, we just started on area between two curves.
My uni divides into 3, 3 months "trimesters" on a normal school year. So calculus is divided into 4 different classes, so I'm still on pretty easy things.
-
I have Calculus 3, which is the last Calc class they offer at my college. I don't even know if Calc goes past that.
I also have Applied Linear Algebra. We'll see how that goes down (no idea what it's about apart from the name).
You know, I have a love/hate relationship with math.
Right now I'm loving how easy it is to derive and integrate hyperbolic trigonometric functions!
Is that the csc h x thingy? We barely touched upon those, and that annoyed me because my professor made us memorize who to derive and integrate those things as soon as we entered for the semester. It seemed kind of rough probably because of that. :lol
Edit: Oh man, I need to review vectors and polar coordinates. I'll need it for Calc 3. :(
-
Yeah. Senh, cosh, tanh, coth, csch, sech.
-
Integrals by Trigonometric Substitution is where it's all at.
-
"Nothing from nothing leaves nothing." - Billy Preston
-
Still the best of them all:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/e/d/2ed5b3ec4a4930c3b694e7515cae906f.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%E2%88%92_2_%2B_3_%E2%88%92_4_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7
rumborak
-
Still the best of them all:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/e/d/2ed5b3ec4a4930c3b694e7515cae906f.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%E2%88%92_2_%2B_3_%E2%88%92_4_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7
rumborak
:hefdaddy
-
Using math to figure out a puzzle can be fun. Memorizing forumulas and how to plug numbers into the formula to solve a problem I will most likely never encounter in day to day life is not fun in the slightest.
-
I love math except for one thing.
Those stupid imaginary numbers.
-
I love math except for one thing.
Those stupid imaginary numbers.
Why? It's basically just substitution.
I get to start vector calculus in a month when school starts again. :metal :metal
-
Don't have math this semester! Sometimes it's fun, but I had a horrible teacher last semester.
(https://img210.imageshack.us/img210/888/snakesonaplaneviawwwdirej9.png)
-
Still the best of them all:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/e/d/2ed5b3ec4a4930c3b694e7515cae906f.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%E2%88%92_2_%2B_3_%E2%88%92_4_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7
rumborak
Ahhhh, series. I had trouble with these because my teacher taught us 7 sections on it in 3 hours. :|
-
Still the best of them all:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/e/d/2ed5b3ec4a4930c3b694e7515cae906f.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%E2%88%92_2_%2B_3_%E2%88%92_4_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7
rumborak
I'm sure the proof is well beyond my understanding of infinite series, but this is specifically described as a divergent series. So what gives?
-
You know, I have a love/hate relationship with math.
Right now I'm loving how easy it is to derive and integrate hyperbolic trigonometric functions!
I was fine with derivatives and differentials. The rules were pretty simple, and once you covered each of the variations, you were set. It was actually fun (in a sick way). Integrals were mostly just reversing things, and covering the rules for the constants. (Yes, I know that's a massive oversimplification.)
Then we got to integration by parts. Then nested integrals, and other "next level" stuff, and I started losing it. I managed to limp through my last term of calculus with a 2.5, and got into advanced calculus.
The textbook was "Advanced Calculus - An Introduction to Analysis". I just went Holy Fucking Shit! The advanced course in something that was already blowing my mind is only the intro to something else! I passed advanced calculus (the second time) and then switched majors. I'd reached the limit (ha!) of what my mind could handle.
-
Yeah Orbert, that was what I learned in Calc II, and it made my semester so rough (already having 18 credits was enough).
-
i like maths, i would say i love it though.
Im not sure whether my favourite area is calculus or trigonometry...
-
Pi = 3 ish.
-
Pi = 3 ish.
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3
rumborak
-
Kind of reminded me of this: https://www.netreach.net/~rjones/no_dhmo.html
-
Math lovers, I need some help.
I need you guys to help me check if this formula for surface area (note, I am literally translating from Spanish to English so I'm not sure if it's the same name, here's the formula: 2(pi)S R(x) [1 + F'(x)2]1/2 dx)
So it turns on x=y3 in the interval [0, 3]
I don't need the end result, I just want to check how the formula turns out.
-
Not checking to see if this was already posted, so I'm just going to offer some obligatory math sarcasm:
(https://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj105/callatov/Divided_by_zero.jpg)
-
(https://awonderfulblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/funny_math_logic_03.jpg)
-
There are 10 types of people; those who understand binary, and those who don't.
-
Math lovers, I need some help.
I need you guys to help me check if this formula for surface area (note, I am literally translating from Spanish to English so I'm not sure if it's the same name, here's the formula: 2(pi)S R(x) [1 + F'(x)2]1/2 dx)
So it turns on x=y3 in the interval [0, 3]
I don't need the end result, I just want to check how the formula turns out.
Is that Volume using Integrals?
-
Math lovers, I need some help.
I need you guys to help me check if this formula for surface area (note, I am literally translating from Spanish to English so I'm not sure if it's the same name, here's the formula: 2(pi)S R(x) [1 + F'(x)2]1/2 dx)
So it turns on x=y3 in the interval [0, 3]
I don't need the end result, I just want to check how the formula turns out.
Is that Volume using Integrals?
No. Though it looks very much like that. I'm trying to find how do they call it on English.
Just derive the x and put in the F'(x)2, that's my main doubt.
-
Arc length?
-
MASSIVE BUMP
Just posted this as my FB status:
Just used Trigonometry to find the optimum angle for a 3 monitor setup and to determine the total desk width required from the base of the left monitor to the base of the right monitor (overhang by the screen ok). I think I just found the perfect math activity if I ever teach a Trigonometry class!
-
Cool.
-
I'd "Like" the status.
-
Fuck yeah complex numbers!
-
lets discuss this awesome formula
(https://i.imgur.com/mxFL5.jpg)
it's amazing how those unrelated but fundamental constants & 'i' all work together like that.
-
It just means geometrically if you rotate something in the complex plane around the origin half a turn, you get -1*(what you rotated).
-
lets discuss this awesome formula
(https://i.imgur.com/mxFL5.jpg)
it's amazing how those unrelated but fundamental constants & 'i' all work together like that.
That was my favourite equation at school. Mathematical elegance at its best!
-
I don't know... writing it as e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0 kind of makes it meaningless.
-
I don't know... writing it as e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0 kind of makes it meaningless.
e^(i*Pi) = -1 doesn't look as good :)
-
Well yes it's like a "trick" to make it look better. My point was just that I could also write 1 - 1 + i^(e*Pi)*Phi*0 = 0 which contains even another "fundamental constant" but the connection is meaningless. Of course Euler's equation is much more beautiful but it's something that happens to be correct. Not some kind of proof or ultimate equation. which some people praise it as.
-
lets discuss this awesome formula
(https://i.imgur.com/mxFL5.jpg)
it's amazing how those unrelated but fundamental constants & 'i' all work together like that.
I've always loved that equation, or identity, or whatever you call it. My friends and I used to have this thing (which I've actually forgotten about until now) where we'd greet each other with statements which make no sense on the surface, or make no sense to someone not extremely well-versed on the subject. Just for shits and giggles. I remember using this one because it's so fun to say out loud.
"Hey man, what's up? E to the eye pie is negative one."
"What? Oh, not much. The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe."
It didn't last long, and I think I was the only one really into it, but it was amusing for a while.
-
Well this is my first time seeing this thread, and I think I'd like to join in on all the fun ;)
I'm not a huge math nerd, but I don't hate math either.
I've taken a few first level calculus and algebra courses so far in university (Differential Calculus, Integral Calculus, Linear Algebra, Stats for the Sciences, and am currently taking Vector Calculus).
I don't have an innate ability to do or understand math, so I still have to work at it, but I still manage to get by with a 75% or so in my classes.
I find that math is much more enjoyable when you understand what you're doing, so I'm quite happy and quite lucky to have had the same calculus teacher for my differential, integral and vector calculus classes, because the man is phenomenal at explaining theorems and ideas.
He's a wonderful teacher, but he does give difficult tests..
All in all, having such a good teacher has really allowed me to enjoy and understand math a lot more than I ever did before, and I have a much better appreciation for it now.
/rant
-
Well yes it's like a "trick" to make it look better. My point was just that I could also write 1 - 1 + i^(e*Pi)*Phi*0 = 0 which contains even another "fundamental constant" but the connection is meaningless. Of course Euler's equation is much more beautiful but it's something that happens to be correct. Not some kind of proof or ultimate equation. which some people praise it as.
Many mathematicians consider it elegant and simply beautiful because it contains the 5 most commonly used (or important or whatever) numbers in math. It's not anything crazily profound beyond its own statement of using those 5 numbers, but having those numbers in true equation like that is really something else for its beauty.
-
Math is the greatest tool that we have as humans. Anyone that hates it is either sucks at it or is just too dumb.
Yes I'm being serious.
-
Ryan :heart
o/
-
*\o
-
(https://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/knownbeforetime/so-much-win-face.png)
-
Math is the greatest tool that we have as humans. Anyone that hates it sucks at it.
*raises hand*
-
i'm pretty sure jimbo owns this thread.
-
I'm lazy. That's my only excuse.
Anyone care to solve this for me?
5 x A : 2 + B - C = 2
D x 9 : E + 8 - F = 15
6 x G : H + I - 2 = 57
9 x J : K + L - 5 = 22
9 x M : 3 + N - 1 = 30
Danke! :)
-
I used to love Math and I really still want to, but Calculus III is really having its way with me right now. :sad:
-
I'm in Calc 1/2 now. Today, we took the derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. Fun shit.
-
Derivatives are so easy. *shrugs*
-
I'm lazy. That's my only excuse.
Anyone care to solve this for me?
5 x A : 2 + B - C = 2
D x 9 : E + 8 - F = 15
6 x G : H + I - 2 = 57
9 x J : K + L - 5 = 22
9 x M : 3 + N - 1 = 30
Danke! :)
Is this a system of equations? Not sure how to read this exactly.
I used to love Math and I really still want to, but Calculus III is really having its way with me right now. :sad:
Hang in there. You'll be fine and you'll love math more afterward.
-
I'm in Calc 1/2 now. Today, we took the derivative of a derivative of a derivative of a derivative. Fun shit.
The 1,000th derivative of e^(3x) is (3^1000)e^(3x). Suck it
-
Is that the chain rule? I just learned that today, so excuse me if it isn't.
-
HELL YES IT'S THE MOOTHAFOOKING CHAIN RULE
-
Bitchin'!!!
I'm surprised I know that after looking at it for just 5 minutes.
-
The derivative of 73109 is 0
The derivative of Jamesman42 is 42
-
Provides Jamesman is a variable...
-
∂d/∂t (ddtonfire) = 2dtonfire
-
∂d/∂t (ddtonfire) = 2dtonfire
Excellent
I always wondered if your username was a derivative of something...ddt makes me think off that
-
e^x is the only thing that is its own derivative. :D Cool.
-
Besides 0...but who really counts that o/
-
*\o
-
Q: What do you get when you divide the circumference of a pumpkin by the diameter of a pumpkin?
A: Pumpkin pi
-
I should use that joke as a bellwork problem on Halloween for my geometry kids. They will moan. :lol
-
Yeah, it's pretty bad. I heard it earlier today.
-
Yeah, it's pretty bad. I heard it earlier today.
me too.
-
I'm lazy. That's my only excuse.
Anyone care to solve this for me?
5 x A : 2 + B - C = 2
D x 9 : E + 8 - F = 15
6 x G : H + I - 2 = 57
9 x J : K + L - 5 = 22
9 x M : 3 + N - 1 = 30
Danke! :)
Is this a system of equations? Not sure how to read this exactly.
I'm not sure, either. All I know is that you need the solution to find the coordinates for a geocache:
N 51° HL.M(N-E)(D-4)
O 08° A(F-I).B(C-G)(J-K)
Obviously, there are many different possible solutions. So I guess I'll just have to check if they are plausible enough. Like, H is most likely to equal 1, and L = 6.
-
Going the "lovers" comparison in the thread title, math for me was a lover I loved with a passion, who then started to be ridiculously aggressive and impossible to understand and after trying to save the relationship for a while I eventually broke up. :P
I still like some things about it but overall I've become much more of a humanist.
-
I've always been a maths lover.... in fact, it always saved my life...
here's my watch
(https://i633.photobucket.com/albums/uu51/senemn/epic-win-photos-math-watch-win1.jpg)
-
I'm lazy. That's my only excuse.
Anyone care to solve this for me?
5 x A : 2 + B - C = 2
D x 9 : E + 8 - F = 15
6 x G : H + I - 2 = 57
9 x J : K + L - 5 = 22
9 x M : 3 + N - 1 = 30
Danke! :)
Is this a system of equations? Not sure how to read this exactly.
I'm not sure, either. All I know is that you need the solution to find the coordinates for a geocache:
N 51° HL.M(N-E)(D-4)
O 08° A(F-I).B(C-G)(J-K)
Obviously, there are many different possible solutions. So I guess I'll just have to check if they are plausible enough. Like, H is most likely to equal 1, and L = 6.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=5A%2F2+%2B+B+-+C+%3D+2%2C+9D%2FE+%2B+8+-+F+%3D+15%2C+6G%2FH+%2B+I+-+2+%3D+57%2C+9J%2FK+%2B+L+-+5+%3D+22%2C+3M+%2B+N+-+1+%3D+30
That can't be right....
-
:lol No, guess not.
-
I <3 math.
-
Finding derivatives is just like working an algebra problem. Seeing as how algebra is my favorite thing ever, I'm really digging this.
-
Dude, calculus is the best. Especially integrals.
-
Yeah, integrals are the best thing about calculus. I'd rank the things in calc like this:
Integrals
Series (once they make sense)
Differential Equations
Derivatives
Limits
(forgot DE's)
-
FUCK SERIES!! FUCK THEM!!!
-
Being in Calc BC, I actually have to do series...not sure what to expect.
-
Well series can be really tough to grasp, but once you do, it's awesome. I pretty much agree with Jamesman.
Yeah, integrals are the best thing about calculus. I'd rank the things in calc like this:
Integrals
Series (once they make sense)
Differential Equations
Derivatives
Limits
(forgot DE's)
-
FUCK SERIES!! FUCK THEM!!!
I know the pain. But if you take some time to dissect them, it's very rewarding and it actually makes a lot of sense (and becomes easy).
Being in Calc BC, I actually have to do series...not sure what to expect.
I'd say expect some WTF moments in the beginning. You'll probably ask yourself "How in the heck is this calculus? Where are the derivatives and integrals?" At least, that is what I thought for a long time even after learning them.
But what makes it calculus, from what I understand, is you are pretty much always adding up infinite terms using finite notation. Calculus deals with limits and infinitesimals, getting down to the smallest of numbers that still apply to a problem. Series are just infinite sums, and they have some special properties of convergence and divergence. Actually, you CAN differentiate/integrate them, but when I learned about them that wasn't emphasized much at all.
-
I have a degree in math.
-
Usually taking a Taylor series around a certain point solves all my fluids problems... They're actually pretty useful!
-
I have a degree in math.
Welcome. :)
Usually taking a Taylor series around a certain point solves all my fluids problems... They're actually pretty useful!
I don't usually use a series to take a piss, but that sounds like a good idea.
-
I mean, if you do a hodograph analysis of your pisser, it's essentially a Borda's mouthpiece.
-
Okay, again I have a geocaching problem...
Got a hint that A is infinite.
Any way to solve this, then?
N51° 05.(((1000-(1/(A/200)))/3)*2,661) E08° 50.0((((1/A)^2)/4)+2)1
-
Argue that ∃x∀yP (x, y) → ∀x∃yP (x, y) is not a tautology.
-
Wut?? :huh: :lol
-
Wut?? :huh: :lol
exactly.
-
0 + 110 = 6 :biggrin:
-
Maybe I should write it down without the coordinates stuff.
A = infinite
First: (((1000-(1/(A/200)))/3)*2,661)
Second: ((((1/A)^2)/4)+2)
1/infinite = 0, that's what the internet says. But infinite/200??
-
If A = infinity, then:
First: 887000
and
Second: 2
I did this by hand but since I have a lot to do, here is wolfram's interpretation:
First (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=evaluate+%28%28%281000-%281%2F%28A%2F200%29%29%29%2F3%29*2%2C661%29+%2C+A+%3D+infinity)
Second (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=evaluate+%28%28%28%281%2FA%29^2%29%2F4%29%2B2%29+%2C+A+%3D+infinity)
-
Argue that ∃x∀yP (x, y) → ∀x∃yP (x, y) is not a tautology.
This is symbolic logic.
"If there exists an x for every y in P(x,y)[unsure what is meant by P(x,y) right now...elaborate?], then for every x there exists a y in P(x,y) [my guess as to how to say P(x,y)"
What method are you using on this? I dunno if I can help.
Someone is borrowing my logic textbook damn it. I've never actually taken a class on logic though I learned truth tables in one class...and I think this is one of those things just beyond what I know.
-
No, it says "If there exists an X so that for every Y P(X,Y) is true then for every X there will exist an Y so that P(X,Y) is true". This is of course not always true, say P(X,Y) is "x^y = 0 with x any real number, and y any real number but not 0". Then the first half is true, there exists an x so that for every y: x^y = 0 (x=0). The second half is not true, if x = 1 for example then no y can make x^y = 0.
The condition that y =/= 0 is because 0^0 = 1 making the first part untrue.
-
What symbol talks about the truth of P(x,y)? Like I said, I've never taken a class on this, but I don't know where you would get that from.
Also, I think when he has to argue this, he has to use some sort of actual method, not explaining with examples.
-
If A = infinity, then:
First: 887000
and
Second: 2
I did this by hand but since I have a lot to do, here is wolfram's interpretation:
First (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=evaluate+%28%28%281000-%281%2F%28A%2F200%29%29%29%2F3%29*2%2C661%29+%2C+A+%3D+infinity)
Second (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=evaluate+%28%28%28%281%2FA%29^2%29%2F4%29%2B2%29+%2C+A+%3D+infinity)
Thank you - you were right! :tup :tup
-
:tup
-
Oh, I think I see why...if-then statements already suppose that "If p is true, then q is true." I always just learned it as "If p, then q" and forgot about the truth values.
Math in the morning woooo
-
Yeah, but normally it should be ∃x∀y: P(x, y) → ∀x∃y: P(x, y) to make it more clear. If you fill in P(x,y) you see why there should be nothing talking about the truth of it
∃x∀y: x^y=0 → ∀x∃y: x^y=0. The fact that the proposition is there makes it true. You know? :D
-
Haha yeah! It slipped my mind because I was just literally reading each symbol.
Logic is not my breakfast. I should go eat something. :lol
-
Gah! I hate those "Facebook Questions" with simple math problems that no one gets right.
40 + 40 x 0 + 1 = ?
Choices were 1, 41, and 81.
Left to right, ignoring order of operations gets you 1. Most popular answer because no one remembers order of operations.
Correct answer obviously is 41.
Second most popular answer is 81?! How in the fuck do you even get 81?!
I had people actually giving me shit for getting the right answer. "I thought you were a math major". Yeah fuck you, I was a math teacher for six years, which is why I know the right answer while you stuck your head up your ass somewhere in junior high and haven't pulled it out yet.
Then I explain order of operations (yeah yeah, the Internet, but Facebook is different because I actually know these people) and they're all "Wow, you're so smart" and I can't tell if half of them are being sarcastic or what. Damn, I need smarter friends.
-
Orbert, you should have seen the shit storm from that one ambiguous arithmetic problem we had a while back; I talked about it on facebook. I had people down my throat saying I was wrong for saying "you do multiplication and division left to right after parentheses and exponents." Except all my math buddies. They were on my side. :lol
-
Had a Calculus test on Friday. Pretty sure I killed it.
-
Nice!
-
Oh, I think I see why...if-then statements already suppose that "If p is true, then q is true." I always just learned it as "If p, then q" and forgot about the truth values.
Math in the morning woooo
I just picked that off the net because I have to take that class in a couple semesters and it looks crazy to me! lol. Wanted to see the responses it got in here. It's for discrete math.
-
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/forumavatars/avatar_3969.jpg)
-
It's pretty easy if you have some mathematical insight. Near impossible if you don't.
-
Gah! I hate those "Facebook Questions" with simple math problems that no one gets right.
40 + 40 x 0 + 1 = ?
Choices were 1, 41, and 81.
Left to right, ignoring order of operations gets you 1. Most popular answer because no one remembers order of operations.
Correct answer obviously is 41.
Second most popular answer is 81?! How in the fuck do you even get 81?!
I had people actually giving me shit for getting the right answer. "I thought you were a math major". Yeah fuck you, I was a math teacher for six years, which is why I know the right answer while you stuck your head up your ass somewhere in junior high and haven't pulled it out yet.
Then I explain order of operations (yeah yeah, the Internet, but Facebook is different because I actually know these people) and they're all "Wow, you're so smart" and I can't tell if half of them are being sarcastic or what. Damn, I need smarter friends.
it's clearly 81. LAWL! People are crazy.
-
I think people got 81 by adding 40, 40 and 1 and regarding 0 as adding nothing. That's my best guess
-
I hate those things. I suck at math and yet I know the answer is obviously 41.
They must not teach people the order of operations anymore. :P
-
I think people got 81 by adding 40, 40 and 1 and regarding 0 as adding nothing. That's my best guess
Probably. So you never had Discrete math?
-
I've never taken it specifically, but I have learned many parts of it in other classes. Over the summer I worked at the college and they were offering it there and while I couldn't audit the class due to my other job, people from the class would come to me for help and most of it wasn't out of my reach.
I would still like to take the class, though, just to get better enriched in it. It's the one lower level math class I have not taken.
I could also stand to do well with a retake in Statistics. I am not good in that subject.
-
I had this class last year called "Proving and Reasoning".
-
I will probably have to take Discrete math and Linear Algebra in the same semester... yay :'(
-
I hated Linear Algebra at first but I love it now. Let me know if you need any help. :)
-
Anyone good with some tough complex numbers involved with algebra stuff? I'll post the problem asap
-
I told my Pre-Calc teacher why I suck at math and the bad experience I had and he seemed genuinely sad.
Basically in third grade when we first learned multiplication, I was asked 8x7. I had no idea and when I couldn't get the answer, the teacher backhanded me on the back of the head and kicked me out of class. That was fuckin rough. But that's Catholic school for you
-
So I just tutored a student in IB Math (hard stuff from what I hear) and he gave me a problem unlike anything I have seen involving complex numbers. I'm not pretending to be Mr. Math Genius here, but this is what I did. He showed me what was given and the first step of the proof. I think all the work is correct but the very last line doesn't make sense to me with |z| = 1 (I only know the very basics of complex numbers, or, maybe I don't if this is a basic). Here is everything you should need:
(https://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/404318_10150674881284623_782344622_11256888_210386407_n.jpg)
I figured that because of my final equation x^2 + y^2 = 1, the implication was that there was a circle of radius 1 correlated to the |z| = 1, but I do not know the connection. Any help would be awesome, would love to see how this ties together.
Also, I am unsure of why we need to use Im(w) = 0.
-
What exactly is it that you're confused about? The work looks good to me.
-
Why do we go from knowing x^2 + y^2 = 1 to |z| = 1, and why do we need to use Im(w) = 0? These seem like concepts related directly to complex number properties and concepts, but I never learned.
-
The absolute value of a complex number x+yi is defined as sqrt(x^2+y^2), so if
x^2 + y^2 = 1
sqrt(x^2+y^2) = sqrt(1) = 1 = |z|
The absolute value of a complex number is fundamentally related to the Pythagorean theorem and linear distance; what you've found here is that the distance from the origin to that point on the complex plane is 1.
Im(w)=0 is essential so that we can set 2wxyi = yi, as you did. We can only make this relation, I think, because we're sure the two terms cancel.
If you never invoked Im(w)=0, how did you (correctly) know that 2wxyi = yi?
-
Ohhh, ok, that makes sense, because absolute value tells us the distance from the origin to the complex number in the complex plane. Awesome.
And regarding the other point, I just figured that if you had real and imaginary parts on both sides, that they were respectively equivalent. It still doesn't make sense to me, though, about Im(w)=0 being involved. :lol If you can explain it further, that'd be awesome, if not I'll research it because this was fun to figure out.
Edit: I never actually learned what Im(w) = 0 meant though. It means the imaginary part of w, right? If so, yeah, totally lost on that point.
-
Im(w) = 0 means that the imaginary part of w is 0; in other words, that w is a real number, or that there are no terms in w with i.
So we have:
w(x^2+2xyi-y^2+1)=x+yi
wx^2+2wxyi-wy^2+w=x+yi
At this point, taking into account that Im(w) = 0, we know that once this has been simplified, the terms 2wxyi and yi will have canceled, since w cannot have any i's anywhere. And they will only cancel if they are equal, given that they're on opposite sides of the equation. So
2wxyi = yi
2wx = 1
w = 1/2x
Basically, you did exactly what you were supposed to do (you set these two terms equal to each other), but you can't just do that; essentially, you got lucky. :lol
Does that make sense? Keep in mind that I'm still only in calculus, and I haven't had any in-depth study of complex numbers myself, so I could very well be wrong. (Hopefully, I'm not, but I embrace the possibility.)
-
That makes a ton more sense, though it still needs to sink in for me to really get it (which is nothing on you, that's just me). Awesome explanation, I think it holds its weight.
This stuff wasn't covered in my precalc book, so yeah I had no idea. This is deeper than my studies and precalc book go. >:(
-
Anyway, I might as well formally introduce myself to the Club. I'm a first-year at the University of Chicago. I'm a computer science major, but I'm going to have to take plenty of math in the next few years. It's not my favorite thing, but I do like it and I have at least a little bit of a knack for it.
-
Anyway, I might as well formally introduce myself to the Club. I'm a first-year at the University of Chicago. I'm a computer science major, but I'm going to have to take plenty of math in the next few years. It's not my favorite thing, but I do like it and I have at least a little bit of a knack for it.
Yeah, I can tell you are good at understanding your math, keep it up! You're my go to guy for complex numbers now (essentially making you my forum bitch). There is no arguing that, ask darklol.
-
Question regarding that complex number problem...why we can assume that x doesn't equal 0, when we haven't defined that...we end up dividing by x at one point.
-
Yeah, I noticed that too. Probably best to amend the conclusion by saying the |z| = 1 if x=/=0.
-
Haha, that's what I told my friend IRL, that was my amendment to it. She isn't satisfied with that answer. She says "We can't assume that x =/= 0 since they don't tell us that.
-
Well, unless there's some other, more clever solution we missed, that's the only way the proof works.
-
University of Chicago, eh? That's my #2 choice.
-
This means that you have good taste. ;) Obviously I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about it.
-
Hey, I'm a third year Maths student and I also work as a tutor for first and second years at my university. Just about that complex number problem, particularly in regards to the whole x=/=0 thing:
Let w = u +iv (i.e. real and imaginary part), but Im(w) = 0 so w = u (where u is real)
From the line w(z^2 + 1) = z:
u(x^2 - y^2 +1 +2ixy) = x +iy
Equate real and imaginary:
x = u(x^2 - y^2 +1) and y = 2xyu
Look at the second of these simultaneous equations first: y = 2xyu => y - 2xyu = 0 => y(1 - 2xu) = 0.
Since we are given y =/= 0 we have (1 - 2xu) = 0. Looking at this equation, if x = 0 then we would have 1 = 0, which means that there is no solution with x = 0 for these two simultaneous equations. So we're not just assuming x=/=0, we've arrived at the conclusion that x=/=0 through our working.
We can then put u=1/(2x) and substitute that into the first equation, which with a little bit of working leads to x^2 +y^2 = 1
From there it should be clear to anyone doing a class involving complex numbers that |z| = 1. There is essentially no step in working between those two lines, you just need to know the definition of the modulus of a complex number as thesoaf said.
Note: Just looking at the given information of the problem, look what happens when we put x=0, so z = iy (purely imaginary)
(We have that y=/=1 here, because we are given (z^2+1)=/=0 which if x=0 => y=/=1)
w=z/(z^2 + 1) would give w = yi / (1 - y^2) = i (y/(1-y^2))
This is a purely imaginary number. But we are given that Im(w) = 0, which would mean that y=0. But we are also given y=/=0, so assuming x=0 and arriving at y=0 is proof by contraciction that x=/=0.
So it's never just assumed that x=/=0. Even though we aren't explicitly given that in the problem, x=/=0 is implied by the two bits of information we are given, namely that y=/=0 and Im(w)=0.
-
:clap:
-
I always love when someone show in a simple way of how amazing and overwhelming math and numbers can be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kPBlOdYZCic
-
Except he can't be 100% certain, only nearly certain.
-
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/certainty.png)
-
So, a bit of a longer story: My company has been hiring like crazy lately, but we have a really had time finding capable people. One thing we make them all do now is to write a code example. The task is to write a small simulation of two cars racing each other, with the trick that each car has a certain probability of actually moving per turn. The result of the simulation is how many car A won over car B after 100 races.
So, while the coding exercise itself isn't all too hard (even though it successfully weeds out the bad ones), we also casually ask the question "does the simulation outcome agree with your mathematical analysis?"
Thing is, the mathematical derivation is nowhere straightforward. None of the candidates ever got anywhere, and I'm pretty sure none of our guys knows what even the correct derivation is. So, this weekend I rectified the issue by deriving the probability of car A winning. What was really exhilerating was that my derivation agreed exactly with the outcome of one candidate's program. It was all infinite sums of conditional probabilities and shit, and within a few seconds my program spit out the same number as the simple simulation took half an hour to do.
-
Even I finished genetic engineering my only favourite subject is not biology, at least overall, it's math. I think I'm really good at it. The only reason I didn't choose it before starting the university is biology (genetic and evolution)'s been my first love since collage. Plus, biology upgrades itself constantly and takes you into very big world you can't even imagine. But still math remains as my secret love inside.
-
I love math for the fact that you just can't argue with it. It is the most objective, truth-preserving language out there.
-
The weird part is, the math I deal with at work is never completely accurate. It's all probabilities and approximations. It's essentially the engineers approach to math.
That's why I loved Nate Silver's approach to election prediction. He never predicted anything really; all he gave was probabilities of events.
-
So, a bit of a longer story: My company has been hiring like crazy lately, but we have a really had time finding capable people. One thing we make them all do now is to write a code example. The task is to write a small simulation of two cars racing each other, with the trick that each car has a certain probability of actually moving per turn. The result of the simulation is how many car A won over car B after 100 races.
So, while the coding exercise itself isn't all too hard (even though it successfully weeds out the bad ones), we also casually ask the question "does the simulation outcome agree with your mathematical analysis?"
Thing is, the mathematical derivation is nowhere straightforward. None of the candidates ever got anywhere, and I'm pretty sure none of our guys knows what even the correct derivation is. So, this weekend I rectified the issue by deriving the probability of car A winning. What was really exhilerating was that my derivation agreed exactly with the outcome of one candidate's program. It was all infinite sums of conditional probabilities and shit, and within a few seconds my program spit out the same number as the simple simulation took half an hour to do.
Now I have to try this. Could you give a little more details?
-
Edit: Changed my mind about the post.
-
Thought I'd bump this thread to show everyone a prank that I decided to play on my Advance Natural Resource Economics instructor.
The class deals very heavily in optimal control theory, which entails optimization across a time path. As an example, it could be used to find a differential equation representing the optimal ore extraction schedule for a gold mine - based on current and projected gold prices, the rate of extraction, and constrained by the amount of gold reserves available. It's still highly theoretical and at present only appears in economic research papers, but I find it an interesting topic.
I just got back from the classroom, where an unorthodox application of optimal control manifested during the night, or at least that's the story that I'm prepared to tell. Maybe ghosts wrote it up on the white-board, it would certainly be fitting:
(https://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n137/tanatra45/pac-manoptimalcontrol_zps45467e10.jpg)
-
Interesting little nugget in The Simpsons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOQ300AcSU
-
Interesting little nugget in The Simpsons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReOQ300AcSU
That's really cool! :tup
-
Awesome channel. Subbed.
-
Math is a useful tool.
(https://fandigunawan.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/25836743211406lzo8-thumb.jpg)
*head explodes*
:splodetard:
-
Re: The Math Lovers Club v. 3.1416
Maths. :hat
:neverusethis:
-
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SbZCECvoaTA
Math vs Maths
-
Can't watch. ginger troll will eat me.
-
So i've heard about The Curta Calculator but never seen one or really gave it any deep thought on how complicated it really is. Here's a nice little video demononstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0cGjC62XRQ
A genious invention!
Here's another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDn_DDsBWws
and a simulation:
https://www.curta.de/kr34/curta_simulator_en.htm
-
That's really cool.
-
I love Math.
Even more than I love Physic.
:neverusethis:
-
Never thought about it that way.
I suppose Brits say "maths" because it's short for "mathematics" which is plural. Americans just say "math" because it's shorter.
But "physics" is short for "physical science" which is singular, so "physic" would be consistent.
But that sounds dumb so we say "physics". Also, American English is rarely consistent.
What do Brits say for "physical science"?
-
I don't even know what that is :P
-
Okay, math people, I have to check Jr's algebra quizzes to see what he missed and why he missed them. This was one of the questions and I'm struggling with the proper way to solve it:
One weight class at a wrestling match has wrestlers that weigh between 152 pounds and 160 pounds, inclusive. Write an absolute value inequality describing the acceptable weight in this class.
Help?
-
Isn't the answer just....
152lbs <= x <= 160lbs
?
-
I would assume so. He'd put the following:
160≥|x|≥152
Which is essentially the same thing. It was marked as incorrect.
-
It's not quite the same thing, since it would allow for negative weights, which makes no sense. I would flag that as false as a teacher too, since Jr clearly just plugged the "|..|" in there because the problem statement had the words "absolute value" in it.
-
Ahh, okay. Got it. Thanks!
-
The problem is that the question doesn't make any sense. He's being asked to write an absolute value inequality for a real-world situation which has nothing to do with absolute value. All weights in this scenario are positive values, so there is no need for absolute value bars anywhere. He put them around the variable in a desperate attempt to meet the requirements of the question.
I would have no idea how to answer such a stupid question, and I was an algebra teacher. First thing I thought of was putting bars around the x, just as your son did, and the second thing I thought of was that that is probably going to get marked wrong anyway.
-
Something like |x-156|<=4? 156 is the middle point of the given interval, so whatever weight fitting the initial description wouldn't fall farther from the middle point than half of the interval width.
-
The problem is that the question doesn't make any sense. He's being asked to write an absolute value inequality for a real-world situation which has nothing to do with absolute value. All weights in this scenario are positive values, so there is no need for absolute value bars anywhere. He put them around the variable in a desperate attempt to meet the requirements of the question.
I would have no idea how to answer such a stupid question, and I was an algebra teacher. First thing I thought of was putting bars around the x, just as your son did, and the second thing I thought of was that that is probably going to get marked wrong anyway.
I interpreted the "absolute" to refer to that the inequality would include actual, i.e. absolute values.
And, I disagree with that "x" and "|x|" should be both treated as correct because negative weights would make no sense in this scenario. The point of the exercise is in deriving an accurate equation.
-
Something like |x-156|<=4? 156 is the middle point of the given interval, so whatever weight fitting the initial description wouldn't fall farther from the middle point than half of the interval width.
I think this would be correct. But there's no real way to know what they were looking for, at least without more context - if the material / assignment included trying to learn the meaning of the absolute value symbol and how to write inequalities in terms like the one above then I think wasteland said the right answer. But if it wasn't clear that that sort of thing should be in the assignment and "absolute value inequality" is just some teacher's failed attempt to communicate some other sort of requirements then there's no way to know what they were looking for.
Anyway, assuming it's at least feasible for it to be in the assignment, I would say the answer is as wasteland said, expressing an interval somewhere on the real line as a distance from the midpoint.
-
If context provides any assistance, the quiz page in question is the LAST page of this file:
https://www.westex.org/cms/lib6/NJ01001533/Centricity/Domain/11/Algebra%2011%20Summer%20Packet%202014.pdf
-
The problem is that the question doesn't make any sense. He's being asked to write an absolute value inequality for a real-world situation which has nothing to do with absolute value. All weights in this scenario are positive values, so there is no need for absolute value bars anywhere. He put them around the variable in a desperate attempt to meet the requirements of the question.
I would have no idea how to answer such a stupid question, and I was an algebra teacher. First thing I thought of was putting bars around the x, just as your son did, and the second thing I thought of was that that is probably going to get marked wrong anyway.
I disagree with that "x" and "|x|" should be both treated as correct because negative weights would make no sense in this scenario. The point of the exercise is in deriving an accurate equation.
I never said that they were both correct. I only said that a proper interpretation of the problem would not involve absolute value, because all values involved in this situation are positive, and everyone knows that. The problem would be fine for inequalities, number lines, even set theory if you wanted to try hard enough, but not absolute value.
As a brain exercise, I kinda like it. wasteland has a correct answer, in that the difference between the weight and 156 cannot exceed 4. The difference between the endpoints is 8, so 156 is in the middle, and you can come up "|x-156|<=4" from there. Or "|156-x|<=4".
When I wrote application problems, I always felt that it was important to use situations that were appropriate for the type of equation (or inequality, as the case may be) we were studying.
As an inequality, this is a fine problem. I would go with "152 <= x <= 160" because even though Cozmo's solution is technically correct, we must also consider the convention that you go from least to greatest value, left to right. But either way. The important part is to not just slap absolute value bars on the x because that allows for the guy to weigh -156 which makes no sense. That's really what I was getting at. This is not a problem that calls for absolute value. Twisting it around to make it an absolute value inequality is an interesting brain exercise, but completely contrived.
-
Wait. How would |x - 156|<=4 allow for negative values? It becomes written as 152 <= x <= 160. x is only between those two numbers, inclusively.
Plugging in any negative number into it makes the statement untrue. Or am I missing something too obvious?
Seems like the problem is seeing if you can a) write it as a normal compound inequality and b) THEN take that and compact it into an absolute value inequality. I like the question, gets you into thinking about reversing the process when usually students learn to "undo" the absolute value sign (at least where I am from).
-
Something <= |x| <= something
Allows for negative values. That's what the kid wrote down.
-
Oh, you were talking about what the kid wrote down. My bad
-
So i've heard about The Curta Calculator but never seen one or really gave it any deep thought on how complicated it really is. Here's a nice little video demononstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0cGjC62XRQ
A genious invention!
Here's another video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDn_DDsBWws
and a simulation:
https://www.curta.de/kr34/curta_simulator_en.htm
I've wanted one of these since I first read about it in a scientific american magazine about 12 years ago. Unfortunately, they go for about $1000 or so on ebay.
(https://www.vcalc.net/images2/Master15-825x534.jpg)
For now, I'll have to remain happy with my K&E Deci-Lon slide rule
(https://foraker.research.att.com/~davek/slide/kne/decilon.jpg)
-
I love Math.
Even more than I love Physic.
:neverusethis:
Your english humor won't impress me.
You should considre changing your ways. :neverusethis:
-
An intellectually challenging game of loop (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34015430)
Would love to play a round of loop.
-
I saw a few videos about it a little while ago on Numberphile and thought it was really awesome. I wonder if they could do anything to get it working more reliably, or whether that's the best it will get in practice.
-
That's really cool!
-
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2073909-prime-number-with-22-million-digits-is-the-biggest-ever-found/
It’s time for a new prime to shine. The largest known prime number is now 274,207,281 – 1, smashing the previous record by nearly 5 million digits.
This mathematical monster was discovered by Curtis Cooper at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg as part of the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS), a collaborative effort to find new primes by pooling computing power online. It has 22,338,618 digits in total.
-
I was wondering what the point was of doing this so I read the article... and there is no point :lol
-
Correct! Number geeks get off on numbers, and finding the largest prime is about as number-geeky as you can get. Since there is no "largest prime of all" (you could theoretically go on infinitely), the prize goes to the "largest known prime". A prime number with 22 million digits? There are at least a few math geeks who literally had to change their underwear after hearing that.
-
Did you know that 0.99999 = 1. It seems nonsensical but it's true
-
Did you know that 0.99999 = 1. It seems nonsensical but it's true
It's one of those things were the decimal representation of a number doesn't seem to be 100% correct, although it is. If we consider that 0.333.... can be expressed as a fraction (which would be 1/3), it suddenly makes complete sense because
1/3*3 = 1
thus
0.333.... * 3 = 0.999.... = 1
-
Technically 0.99999 does not equal 1, it equals 0.99999.
However, 0.99 recurring, i.e. 0.999999999999999999999999999999999 and an infinite number of further 9s, that equals 1.
-
Did you know that 0.99999 = 1. It seems nonsensical but it's true
No, it's not. 0.99999 is finite. You meant 0.99999...
The difference is that the ellipsis indicates that the nines go on forever. If they literally go on forever, the value approaches 1.0 by a smaller and smaller margin with each digit. Since the nines do go on infinitely, the margin of difference, by definition, becomes infinitesimally small.
Ninja'd, but whatever.
-
Exactly. 0.99999... will never be 1.0
-
"will never be"? No, it actually is. Mathematical definition of a limit.
-
Expound on that.
-
Well, in laymen's terms, there is no "space" on the real number line between 0.999... and 1. Ask yourself this: What is the difference (subtraction) between 1 and 0.999...?
-
Well, in laymen's terms, there is no "space" on the real number line between 0.999... and 1. Ask yourself this: What is the difference (subtraction) between 1 and 0.999...?
.001
-
You do know the "..." means the 9's keep going, right?
-
Yes. So you're saying there is no right answer to that equation?
-
0.9999... = 1
0.99999 /= 1
-
So then there's some logical explanation as to why that's the case I assume?
-
So then there's some logical explanation as to why that's the case I assume?
Did you know that 0.99999 = 1. It seems nonsensical but it's true
It's one of those things were the decimal representation of a number doesn't seem to be 100% correct, although it is. If we consider that 0.333.... can be expressed as a fraction (which would be 1/3), it suddenly makes complete sense because
1/3*3 = 1
thus
0.333.... * 3 = 0.999.... = 1
At least that's the way I understand it.
-
The fraction example makes perfect sense.
When I think about it I think about infinity, the ... representing the 9s going on infinitely and the gap between 0.999.. and 1 becomes infinitely small where it can be considered 0. Essentially reworded what Orbert said.
DT_12_Octavarium is a troll just trying to stir the pot of minds that like to discuss these details.
-
It makes perfect sense when you look at it that way.
-
Oh, and this is for the troll.
(https://www.cinema52.com/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Journey-Sun.png)
-
It's always hard to wrap my head around the fact that two separate numbers are actually the same. Because in my mind 0.999... Is still 0.000....001 less than 1.00000....
-
But 0.000...001 is finite because it ENDS in 1.
-
But 0.000...001 is finite because it ENDS in 1.
It's not finite if there are an infinite number of zeros in between.
You can also think about it this way:
Let's say x = 0.999....
Multiply both sides by 10
10*x = 9.999....
Subtract x from both sides (which we defined as 0.999....)
9*x = 9
Divide by 9
x = 1
So x = 1 = 0.999....
-
Guys, I don`t want to interrupt your (in-)finite number debate (it`s almost exactly the same, everybody denying that is really nitpicking).
Anyways, I`m currently writing about the Kepler Conjecture (packings of spheres) for a school work and I`m really fascinated in that topic. I mean, the problem itself is so damn simple, but nevertheless it took 400 years to be solved and it`s interesting to see how people figured it out. It kind of demonstrates mathematician madness (really, the right answer is obvious, but not proved until 1998 which is 387 years after it was firstly mentioned), but I love it.
-
Guys, I don`t want to interrupt your (in-)finite number debate (it`s almost exactly the same, everybody denying that is really nitpicking).
Anyways, I`m currently writing about the Kepler Conjecture (packings of spheres) for a school work and I`m really fascinated in that topic. I mean, the problem itself is so damn simple, but nevertheless it took 400 years to be solved and it`s interesting to see how people figured it out. It kind of demonstrates mathematician madness (really, the right answer is obvious, but not proved until 1998 which is 387 years after it was firstly mentioned), but I love it.
Huh, I just finished working on some stuff about particle distributions in powders (exciting stuff, right?) like 20 minutes ago. Not exactly the same thing, but kind of in the same vein. What class are you taking that they want you to deal with that?
-
After I got my engineering degree about 10 years ago, I decided I wanted to get a graduate degree in physics. This didn't pan out, but in the process I took a few undergrad courses at Stony Brook, including complex analysis. This was the first college class I failed. I realized a few weeks in that I didn't have the necessary math background, including real analysis and a few other subjects, since my undergrad math education was only 4 semesters of calculus and one of statistics.
Anyway, as I struggled with the material, I couldn't help but feel like the subject matter was just barely out of reach, rather than totally above my head. A few months ago I came across this youtube channel with a series of excellent lessons on introductory complex analysis. The graphics are extremely helpful, especially in the later videos where conformal mapping is depicted real time of the lecturer drawing functions on the input plane with the output plane transformed using a pixel mapping script. I remember the lecture in my class about this, and I just couldnt visualize what was happening.
(https://i.imgur.com/3RMU8qG.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T647CGsuOVU&list=PLiaHhY2iBX9g6KIvZ_703G3KJXapKkNaF
-
Ooooh, conformal mappings. You spend a lot of time doing that in EE because you can often simplify a problem by transforming it into a different space.
-
The only EE application of complex numbers I have been exposed to is in AC RLC circuits with virtual power, reactance, etc. Not surprising since I'm an ME.
Anyway, check out the whole playlist. Should be about an hour total.
-
I definitely forgot most if not all of my higher learning in math. The hardest math class I had was an EE class though. I don't think I was ever able to solve the problems relating to Fourier series.
-
Speaking of Fourier:
https://toxicdump.org/stuff/FourierToy.swf
Edit:
And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r18Gi8lSkfM
-
Okay DTF. I have a real brain-buster for you. What is the are of this hexagon?
(https://i.imgur.com/HXhfo44l.jpg)
(Please excuse the crudity of this representation. All 6 angles are identical)
-
Okay DTF. I have a real brain-buster for you. What is the are of this hexagon?
(https://i.imgur.com/HXhfo44l.jpg)
(Please excuse the crudity of this representation. All 6 angles are identical)
Since it's an equilateral hexagon, and the sum of the interior angles is 720 deg., the hexagon can be divided into 6 equilateral triangles with legs of 5. Using the side-angle-side method of calculating area (A = ab*sinC/2, where a and b are the sides and C is the angle in degrees) gives you 10.8253 for the area of each, and multiply that by 6 gives you a total area of 64.9519.
Am I right?
-
75√3 / 2 or about 64.9519 ' .
Got to this drawing the line connecting up the other two opposite vertices on the hexagon, and knowing each of them will be 10 as well since the hexagon has equal angles, equal sides etc.
This splits the hexagon up into 6 triangles, which are equilateral triangles (equal sides, equal angles), because in the centre you have 360 degrees divided into 6 equal angles, and at the outside you have the 120 degree angles of the hexagon split in two. Since each full line through the hexagon was 10, then each triangle has side 5.
So we want to work out the area of an equilateral triangle of side 5. Different formula for doing this but "half base times height" is perhaps the simplest one. If the base is 5 you need to work out the height, which you can get using Pythatogas' Theorem or trig functions but you don't need those. Divide the triangle in half and consider the right angled triangle with one side 5/2 (half of the base 5) and hypotenuse 5. The height will be the other side, and Pythagoras' theorem gives us that (5/2)^2 + height^2 = 5^2, which ends up giving height^2 = 75/4. Taking the square root of this gives 5√3/2.
Anyway, this was all to work out the area of an equilateral triangle using "half base times height", which gives 1/2 * 5 * 5√3/2 = 25√3/2. There are 6 of these triangles, so multiply by 6 and you get 75√3 / 2.
Not something I knew a forumla for so quite interesting to check how to get it using basic geometry. No idea of the method I described is needlessly long and if there's a much easier way of looking at it, but tried to do it using minimal other formula and not needing to know the values of trig functions.
-
Since it's an equilateral hexagon, and the sum of the interior angles is 720 deg., the hexagon can be divided into 6 equilateral triangles with legs of 5. Using the side-angle-side method of calculating area gives you 10.83 for the area of each, and multiply that by 6 gives you a total area of 64.98.
Am I right?
That's what I got as well, but I wasn't sure. I think that's the first time I've ever needed the area of a hexagon. I'm putting up a new gazebo on Saturday and it looks like I'm going to have a little more than 100 extra square feet under cover now :hat
Thanks
-
Nerds will inherit the earth.
I didn't check the numbers, but the geometry is sound. And congrats on the gazebo!
-
75√3 / 2 or about 64.9519 ' .
Got to this drawing the line connecting up the other two opposite vertices on the hexagon, and knowing each of them will be 10 as well since the hexagon has equal angles, equal sides etc.
This splits the hexagon up into 6 triangles, which are equilateral triangles (equal sides, equal angles), because in the centre you have 360 degrees divided into 6 equal angles, and at the outside you have the 120 degree angles of the hexagon split in two. Since each full line through the hexagon was 10, then each triangle has side 5.
So we want to work out the area of an equilateral triangle of side 5. Different formula for doing this but "half base times height" is perhaps the simplest one. If the base is 5 you need to work out the height, which you can get using Pythatogas' Theorem or trig functions but you don't need those. Divide the triangle in half and consider the right angled triangle with one side 5/2 (half of the base 5) and hypotenuse 5. The height will be the other side, and Pythagoras' theorem gives us that (5/2)^2 + height^2 = 5^2, which ends up giving height^2 = 75/4. Taking the square root of this gives 5√3/2.
Anyway, this was all to work out the area of an equilateral triangle using "half base times height", which gives 1/2 * 5 * 5√3/2 = 25√3/2. There are 6 of these triangles, so multiply by 6 and you get 75√3 / 2.
Not something I knew a forumla for so quite interesting to check how to get it using basic geometry. No idea of the method I described is needlessly long and if there's a much easier way of looking at it, but tried to do it using minimal other formula and not needing to know the values of trig functions.
I blew up my screen size to 500% and still couldn't read that! :lol
-
75√3 / 2 or about 64.9519 ' .
Got to this drawing the line connecting up the other two opposite vertices on the hexagon, and knowing each of them will be 10 as well since the hexagon has equal angles, equal sides etc.
This splits the hexagon up into 6 triangles, which are equilateral triangles (equal sides, equal angles), because in the centre you have 360 degrees divided into 6 equal angles, and at the outside you have the 120 degree angles of the hexagon split in two. Since each full line through the hexagon was 10, then each triangle has side 5.
So we want to work out the area of an equilateral triangle of side 5. Different formula for doing this but "half base times height" is perhaps the simplest one. If the base is 5 you need to work out the height, which you can get using Pythatogas' Theorem or trig functions but you don't need those. Divide the triangle in half and consider the right angled triangle with one side 5/2 (half of the base 5) and hypotenuse 5. The height will be the other side, and Pythagoras' theorem gives us that (5/2)^2 + height^2 = 5^2, which ends up giving height^2 = 75/4. Taking the square root of this gives 5√3/2.
Anyway, this was all to work out the area of an equilateral triangle using "half base times height", which gives 1/2 * 5 * 5√3/2 = 25√3/2. There are 6 of these triangles, so multiply by 6 and you get 75√3 / 2.
Not something I knew a forumla for so quite interesting to check how to get it using basic geometry. No idea of the method I described is needlessly long and if there's a much easier way of looking at it, but tried to do it using minimal other formula and not needing to know the values of trig functions.
I blew up my screen size to 500% and still couldn't read that! :lol
:lol Thought small size was the spoiler one here, in case mine was the first reply and others were thinking about it as well :p But I see yours was first so no need to be spoilered, and yeah mine pretty much what you said except more long winded.
-
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php
-
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php
Dodecahedron IS the answer.
-
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php
Dodecahedron IS the answer.
Disdyakis triacontahedron.
(https://media.wired.com/photos/592700c2cefba457b079bd34/master/w_582,c_limit/Dice.jpg)
-
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php
Dodecahedron IS the answer.
Disdyakis triacontahedron.
(https://media.wired.com/photos/592700c2cefba457b079bd34/master/w_582,c_limit/Dice.jpg)
It's getting hot in here...
;)
-
https://rechneronline.de/pi/hexagon.php
Dodecahedron IS the answer.
Disdyakis triacontahedron.
(https://media.wired.com/photos/592700c2cefba457b079bd34/master/w_582,c_limit/Dice.jpg)
(https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvignette1.wikia.nocookie.net%2Fgravityfalls%2Fimages%2F9%2F9b%2FS2e13_infinite_dice.png%2Frevision%2Flatest%3Fcb%3D20150805020356&hash=78bd2c653e1dbfa5081cf5e3ce3cae1968ce46b5)
-
Adam Savage builds a Rhombic Dodecahedron: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65r_1TzJXaQ
Really cool when you see the cube.
-
I need help calculating some cuts and I'm at a complete loss on how to figure this one out. I'll just give the high-level overview, and if it's something someone can help me with, I can get a little more granular with measurements.
So I'm building a 3lb combat robot, basically a miniature version of this:
(https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/battlebots/images/4/46/Biohazard_sfb01.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/580?cb=20121218214153)
Here is how it sits now:
(https://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/147821191_10164701768540111_3855652458730084851_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=DAmegFNrFhsAX-ZGGrz&_nc_ht=scontent-bos3-1.xx&oh=be83af7784a2abd84edb08da0698ec6a&oe=604937F9)
I'm looking to wrap it in armor, but it turns out I absolutely suck at geometry at this level. It was evident pretty quick that me thinking all the cuts would be a uniform 45 degrees was not the case:
(https://preview.redd.it/ikuosmv6qx761.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s=f87422c8beecc693258881711beb517e0d8bfb81)
Basically, the angles that are flush with the top of the bot and the floor are going to be 45 degrees, but I have no idea how to calculate the angles for the corners (along multiple axis). Is this something that somebody here could school me on?
-
Is that your kitchen/dining room table? That's bad ass.
-
That's my dining room table. I love it. It belonged to the person who owned the house before me. At the closing, I negotiated that as part of the transaction. I really wanted it.
-
They're dumb. :) :) :) :)
So.... if I understand you correctly... you're going to cut four trapezoids, with a top dimension equal to the length of the top square/rectangle piece, and a bottom dimension equal to... whatever the math says it is (I figure the top dimension is x, the height is h, and because you're working with 45o angles, your base is x+2h).
You want to know what the angle from the face to the back is on the sides, so that when you fit all four together, the edges are flush all around on the outside and the inside.
If height h=0, then the that angle - from the face to the edge - would be 90o. If height h was infinite (meaning the side trapezoids weren't trapezoids, but were rectangles), that angle would be 45o. So if you're tipping the trapezoids on a 45o angle themselves, wouldn't the face to edge angle be halfway between 45 and 90, or 67.5o? I'm sure there's math to calculate that, but it's beyond me; you're probably better off taking a couple pieces of wood and test cutting them for fit.
(Holy crap, this would be so much easier in person or with a white board; trying to put this into words is a task in itself.)
-
Here's the other thing you could do: create one or two jigs that are a triangle with two sides of height h. Gently glue one or both (depending on how long the pieces are) to the backside of your trapezoids, so that they sit, propped, at that 45o angle. Then cut the trapezoid at a 45o angle from either base of the trapezoid, except the trapezoid itself will not lie flat on your saw, but will be propped at an angle. Does that make sense? I can make a makeshift video I think, with my phone if it doesn't.
-
They're dumb. :) :) :) :)
So.... if I understand you correctly... you're going to cut four trapezoids, with a top dimension equal to the length of the top square/rectangle piece, and a bottom dimension equal to... whatever the math says it is (I figure the top dimension is x, the height is h, and because you're working with 45o angles, your base is x+2h).
You want to know what the angle from the face to the back is on the sides, so that when you fit all four together, the edges are flush all around on the outside and the inside.
If height h=0, then the that angle - from the face to the edge - would be 90o. If height h was infinite (meaning the side trapezoids weren't trapezoids, but were rectangles), that angle would be 45o. So if you're tipping the trapezoids on a 45o angle themselves, wouldn't the face to edge angle be halfway between 45 and 90, or 67.5o? I'm sure there's math to calculate that, but it's beyond me; you're probably better off taking a couple pieces of wood and test cutting them for fit.
(Holy crap, this would be so much easier in person or with a white board; trying to put this into words is a task in itself.)
That's exactly what my thought process was, but when it came time to make some test pieces out of 1/4" plywood, they weren't anywhere close.
I hear you on verbalizing this. I'm really struggling. For each armor plate, there will need to be a total of six angles cut, and even if I get the match to check out, cutting them properly with my limited tools is going to be a whole other challenge. I'm going to tinker with it tonight and see if I can get anywhere or any more pics that might be helpful.
-
Here's the other thing you could do: create one or two jigs that are a triangle with two sides of height h. Gently glue one or both (depending on how long the pieces are) to the backside of your trapezoids, so that they sit, propped, at that 45o angle. Then cut the trapezoid at a 45o angle from either base of the trapezoid, except the trapezoid itself will not lie flat on your saw, but will be propped at an angle. Does that make sense? I can make a makeshift video I think, with my phone if it doesn't.
I think I'm following. I'm not sure if that's really necessary because I have the ability to angle the blade on the table saw these are getting run through. Instead of having to jig/tilt the material to get my angle, I just angle the blade.
-
Here's the other thing you could do: create one or two jigs that are a triangle with two sides of height h. Gently glue one or both (depending on how long the pieces are) to the backside of your trapezoids, so that they sit, propped, at that 45o angle. Then cut the trapezoid at a 45o angle from either base of the trapezoid, except the trapezoid itself will not lie flat on your saw, but will be propped at an angle. Does that make sense? I can make a makeshift video I think, with my phone if it doesn't.
I think I'm following. I'm not sure if that's really necessary because I have the ability to angle the blade on the table saw these are getting run through. Instead of having to jig/tilt the material to get my angle, I just angle the blade.
But isn't that the trick, though, to know how much to angle the blade? I'm using brute force here to empirically cut a piece that fits, and then you can measure the angle. Because the "devil" is in that "slant" of the side trapezoids. When you look down from the top, all the angles in 2D are 45 degrees. So you're "faking" the saw into cutting the real angle by angling the trapezoid to what it would be in real life without knowing what the resulting angle will be.
-
Here's the other thing you could do: create one or two jigs that are a triangle with two sides of height h. Gently glue one or both (depending on how long the pieces are) to the backside of your trapezoids, so that they sit, propped, at that 45o angle. Then cut the trapezoid at a 45o angle from either base of the trapezoid, except the trapezoid itself will not lie flat on your saw, but will be propped at an angle. Does that make sense? I can make a makeshift video I think, with my phone if it doesn't.
I think I'm following. I'm not sure if that's really necessary because I have the ability to angle the blade on the table saw these are getting run through. Instead of having to jig/tilt the material to get my angle, I just angle the blade.
But isn't that the trick, though, to know how much to angle the blade? I'm using brute force here to empirically cut a piece that fits, and then you can measure the angle. Because the "devil" is in that "slant" of the side trapezoids. When you look down from the top, all the angles in 2D are 45 degrees. So you're "faking" the saw into cutting the real angle by angling the trapezoid to what it would be in real life without knowing what the resulting angle will be.
Oh I see. You're talking about a reverse engineering approach - get it to work and measure after. That's probably what I'm going to have to resort to.
-
Yes, but get it to work without a ton of trial and error.
How thick are your final pieces going to be, do you know? Let's say they are 1/8". Get a 1/8" (actual, not nominal) thick piece of balsa or plywood, and cut the trapezoid, worrying ONLY about the top and bottom lengths, not the angles (yet). So you'll end up with a trapezoid of top base "b" - which is the length of the sides of that top square plate - and bottom base "b+2h", where "h" is the distance from the bottom of your trapezoidal prism to the very top of that top square plate. You can, if you want, cut the 45 degree angles of the top and bottom bases if you want, because you know those. That leaves you with a trapezoid that is too "thick" on the interior side of each side edge, and that is what has to be angled. It's that angle - from the front face to the back - that you don't know. So you trick the saw by propping it up at a 45 degree angle from the plane of the saw deck, like it would be in the final assembly, and cut it at a 45 degree angle from either of the top or bottom base lines.
Let me know how thick your plates are; I might have some wood in the garage I can play with to get the angle.
(You've piqued the engineer in me; I want to know this now, not just for you, but to satisfy my own curiosity!).
-
Yes, but get it to work without a ton of trial and error.
How thick are your final pieces going to be, do you know? Let's say they are 1/8". Get a 1/8" (actual, not nominal) thick piece of balsa or plywood, and cut the trapezoid, worrying ONLY about the top and bottom lengths, not the angles (yet). So you'll end up with a trapezoid of top base "b" - which is the length of the sides of that top square plate - and bottom base "b+2h", where "h" is the distance from the bottom of your trapezoidal prism to the very top of that top square plate. You can, if you want, cut the 45 degree angles of the top and bottom bases if you want, because you know those. That leaves you with a trapezoid that is too "thick" on the interior side of each side edge, and that is what has to be angled. It's that angle - from the front face to the back - that you don't know. So you trick the saw by propping it up at a 45 degree angle from the plane of the saw deck, like it would be in the final assembly, and cut it at a 45 degree angle from either of the top or bottom base lines.
Let me know how thick your plates are; I might have some wood in the garage I can play with to get the angle.
(You've piqued the engineer in me; I want to know this now, not just for you, but to satisfy my own curiosity!).
Armor is going to be 1/4" thick (final material will be HDPE). The offer is much appreciated. Hold off on firing up your tools though. I've got a few ideas I'm going to test out after work that might eliminate the need for two of the angles on each side. I can report back on how that works out.
-
Roger that; here to help if you need it.
-
Yeah, so I had zero luck last night. Pretty sure I just need to bite the bullet and buy a miter saw.
-
I <3 All The Maths.
-
Here's the other thing you could do: create one or two jigs that are a triangle with two sides of height h. Gently glue one or both (depending on how long the pieces are) to the backside of your trapezoids, so that they sit, propped, at that 45o angle. Then cut the trapezoid at a 45o angle from either base of the trapezoid, except the trapezoid itself will not lie flat on your saw, but will be propped at an angle. Does that make sense? I can make a makeshift video I think, with my phone if it doesn't.
I think I'm following. I'm not sure if that's really necessary because I have the ability to angle the blade on the table saw these are getting run through. Instead of having to jig/tilt the material to get my angle, I just angle the blade.
But isn't that the trick, though, to know how much to angle the blade? I'm using brute force here to empirically cut a piece that fits, and then you can measure the angle. Because the "devil" is in that "slant" of the side trapezoids. When you look down from the top, all the angles in 2D are 45 degrees. So you're "faking" the saw into cutting the real angle by angling the trapezoid to what it would be in real life without knowing what the resulting angle will be.
So I don't know if I understood what you were saying, or if what you said made me think of something that worked, but I finally cracked it over the weekend.
Test fit with wood:
(https://i.imgur.com/dqoO0MK.jpg)
Final material:
(https://i.imgur.com/Y58VO5P.jpg)
However, I already exceeded the weight limit (3lb) and had to reshape :/ I had to ditch the rear wedge to reduce overall surface area and changed the rear thickness from 1/4" to 1/8".
(https://i.imgur.com/bHR9wbr.jpeg)
Managed to shave off close to .5lb
(https://i.imgur.com/SZscYMK.jpg)
-
Happy Pi day
(https://pics.me.me/todays-math-joke-23-%CF%83ju-and-it-was-delicious-the-11212866.png)
-
Was tempted to translate it, saw what thread I'm in, and refrained. Y'all can figure it out yourselves.
-
That looks like a David X Cohen joke. Exec Producer on Futurama and complete maths and science geek.
-
Long time with no activity here. Figured I would share this (Chino might get a laugh out of it).
Animation Vs. Math
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1J6Ou4q8vE
Animation Vs. Physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErMSHiQRnc8
-
The vs math one says it was uploaded 6 months ago, but I swear I have seen it (or I guess something similar) a longer time ago. Still cool.
I have been teaching math for 12 years now. I really enjoy it, though this year has been the exception, but not because of the kids. I recently had a former student who is now an adult come back and tell me he is going to college for aerospace engineering (I think that is what he said, something along those lines) and that I was inspiration to him for loving math.
-
Yeah I have a vague memory of seeing something similar to the Math video a long time ago.
That's cool about the former student. I got my BA in education, and part of it was because of some of the great teachers I had during high school and middle school. My career took me on a different path though.