| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Comments:
<0> |Steve|, do you know of any good comic books,id like to look on some,but not typical ones..
<1> % Solve[x^2+1==0,x]
<2> mbot isn't around.
<3> forged : +/- i
<1> % Solve[x^3 + 5*x^8 + 8*x +6==0,x]
<1> % Solve[x^3 + 5*x^2 + 8*x +6==0,x]
<3> forged : factor it yourself
<1> too difficult to factor by hand
<1> anyone has mathematica and can factor dis for me?
<2> forged: What part of "mbot isn't around" didn't you catch?
<1> forged part
<4> can someone explain how to impliment
<4> implement a fft
<1> boobs
<4> i have done a semester course on fourier transform and laplace ...
<4> buyt imm trying to understand the discrete fourier transform
<4> in particular the fast fourier transform
<4> forged: high five
<5> i see stupidity is contagious
<4> ok sorry
<4> that was really uncalled for
<1> fwaefwe has small penis
<2> forged: Go away.
<1> |steve|: come here
<6> forged: I think x= -3 is a solution to that last equation, try it
<5> sigh they never learn
<4> roflllllllll
<4> help i cant get up
<5> you just need a kick
<4> see u in the mbol bldgh
<4> kick me anywhere
<4> sorry ok that was completey ot
<4> no high fives to anywon until someone answers me q
<2> What is your question?
<5> you get the brain from wizard of oz, just follow the yellow brick road, thanks
<4> ok im trying to understand the discrete fourier transfrom
<4> fwaefwe: well pk, r u dissing my country
<4> no matter
<4> i am here for a challenge
<5> no, just you
<4> good
<2> bouma: Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_fourier_transform
<4> i have
<5> hi, i'm trying to understand math, anyone help me?!?!
<4> from there i found out that euler discovered it in some form in 1800
<7> gauss actually
<7> do you understand the continous fourier transform?
<4> ok i gotta check that one
<4> ta 1 sec
<7> actually i think gauss went as far as discovering fft
<6> gauss did alot of things it seems
<4> tombow: yes
<4> im pretty happy with semi / infinite integrals of the form int p[-int,int]{F(w)e^-iwx dx} dx
<4> damn ,dw
<4> anyway i didnty know gause personally
<4> so i really cant say
<4> im more interested in the discrete transform
<4> and the simplifications
<4> due to general matrix simplification
<8> so this is something i've been puzzling a bit
<8> given a complete graph with N vertices, how many connected subgraphs with M edges can be made ?
<9> % k *(k + 1)*(k+1)+(k+1)^2 //Expand
<9> Oh no!!!
<9> Where is mbot?
<9> I really need that expanded!!
<10> Cpudan80: That's = (k+1)^3 = k^3 + 3k^2 + 3k + 1
<9> Kasadkad: Thanks so much man
<9> I didnt want to foil at 1 AM
<10> No foiling necessary :P
<11> you don't really have to foil that
<11> use binomial coefficients
<9> well whatever you want to call it
<9> I didnt want to do it by hand
<12> aight, problem
<8> no one has any idea how to attack my problem?
<8> given a complete graph with N vertices, how many connected subgraphs with M edges can be made ?
<8> or know if it has been solved?
<12> i have someone who has american letter size paper (8.5" x 11") and wants to get standard A4 proportions 1:Sqrt(2)
<12> but they don't have an accurate ruler or measuring device
<12> how can they fold the paper so as to create a 1:Sqrt(2) rectangle?
<13> Can't think right now... just how do I solve x*a+r==x*b+s to x
<13> right, never mind
<14> jengelh: x(a-b) = s-r => x = (s-r)/(a-b)
<13> right, thanks
<15> Does anybody know the name of this theorem: Let H,K be subgroups of G. Then o(HK) = o(H)*o(K) / o(H `intersect` K)?
<10> I haven't heard a particular name for it
<2> What do you mean by o?
<10> order
<2> So |HK|, then.
<15> Yea
<2> kilimanjaro: I don't know of a name, but I know the proof.
<2> The proof is simple, but I'm not really sure how someone would come up with it.
<15> Can you explain it?
<2> Basically, you let H x K act on G by (h,k)g = hgk^-1.
<15> act?
<2> Then, HK is the orbit of H x K through 1_G.
<2> Yes, group actions.
<15> I just learned Lagrange's theorem, maybe I'll wait for this one
<10> Well, it doesn't have to be phrased in terms of group actions
<2> Next, Stab_{H x K}(1) = { (h,k) | (h,k)1 = 1 } = { (h,k) | h = k } = H intersect K.
<15> But it will probably make more sense when I get further along in my studies
<2> Lastly, HK is isomorphic as a H x K set to H x K / Stab_{H x K}(1).
<2> If H and K are finite, then the theorem follows.
<2> Lagrange's follows from group actions too.
<2> You let G act on the coset space G/H by left multiplication.
<15> Lagrange's theorem is pretty simple to prove even for me
<2> The action is transitive so |Stab_G(1H)| |G/H| = |G|.
<2> But Stab_G(1H) = H and the proof is complete.
<15> Is this material usually covered in the undergraduate algebra 1/2?
<2> I covered group actions, but I don't think we proved these theorems using them.
<2> It's been a few years though.
<2> I'm not claiming that groups acting on sets is the only way to prove this stuff. Just that the proofs are short.
<16> I need help with this question: g is a line and E is a plane in R^3. Find a parametric form for g and E. g: {a-5b=-4, 3b-c=2} and E: -a+4b-2c=2
<16> I asked earlier but got sidetracked before i could get helped
<14> In set notation, would the following be equivalent: {x : y : z} and {x : y and z} ?
<15> I don't understand either of those
<14> kilimanjaro: Have you studied the definitions of functions by sets (and set theory)?
<15> Yes
<5> what does {x:y:z} even mean
<5> {x: y and z} means x such that y and z
<14> fwaefwe: Right.
<15> Capso, sorry, I thought y and z were ground terms in that
<14> fwaefwe: I ***ume it means: x if y if z, hence my proposition of equivalency... but I'm not sure either.
<10> I don't know what that means either
<14> It's used for the Quine-Rosser definition of ordered pairs...
<14> Do you know of that?
<15> Capso, I have never seen {x : y : z}
<14> kilimanjaro: I only just now.
<15> (x,y) = {{x},{x, y}} ?
<14> kilimanjaro: That's not Quine-Rosser definition.
<15> I don't memorize the names of all this stuff
<15> Ok, I see the definition on wikipedia
<15> I believe that the colon basically means "such that", as a connective between two expressions
<14> Could you provide me with a simplified example?
<15> The reson you would want multiple colons is just to make quantifiers look cleaner
<15> reason*
<14> kilimanjaro: But "and" would suffice?
<15> Ok, (keep in mind this is just a guess on my part), what I am thinking is {x : exists y : x*y = 1} would be the set of x's with a right inverse
<15> Capso, well, an expression containing a quantifier introduces a new variable, so : is just a mechanism for expressing scope
<14> kilimanjaro: Could that then be restated without multiple colons?
<15> Capso, sure, you can take off the second colon and people will understand what you are talking about
<14> kilimanjaro: Oh, I see what you're saying.
<14> kilimanjaro: Yeah, I get it.
<14> kilimanjaro: That's a confusing way to put it. :/
<15> Capso, sorry, I come from a programming background so that's just what first came to my head
<14> kilimanjaro: Not you... I meant the way it's represented on the wiki...
<15> AHh
<15> Yea
<15> Some math guys really like to do that sort of thing
<14> kilimanjaro: KISS
Return to
#math
or
Go to some related
logs:
postfix/smtp problem talking to service rewrite
qingy mouse gentoo
gentoo shutdown saving random seed
#fedora
dvd-to-go ubuntu
HOWTO: enable multiuniverse
archpollux
mysql dialect documentation
#perl
onreadystatechange closure
|
|