| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Comments:
<0> heh
<1> yeah, all the way
<2> except they get all complicated with f(2x^2+3x+2)=(equation I posted above)
<1> man the first day of calculus I i got the epsilon-delta definition of a limit shoved down my throat, i was flabbergasted
<1> i didn't understand it until like a year later
<2> what's the definition?
<0> eh
<0> you'll live
<1> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Epsilon-DeltaDefinition.html
<1> oh yeah, i lived to see 5 more years so far ha
<2> cyby: this part I will, we get two days of review (learned it today, quiz on thursday), and then it's on to the harder stuff
<0> well
<0> you got here
<1> the "harder stuff" is actually mostly easy in calc I
<2> holy **** Kampen
<1> the new stuff
<1> that's more complex than the one they'd give you in calc I
<2> this is actually calculus for business and economics
<1> the words they use at least
<2> 2e
<1> well then yeah it'll likely be heavily numerical
<1> i mean on the economics side you do have a lot of theory you can cover, but i guess it depends on who you're taking it with
<0> eh
<0> it'll be easy
<0> just have confidence
<1> yeah dude, like the stuff they say is hard will be like "find the derivative of 2*x^3" and there's something called the power rule, where c*x^a and c,a are real that says that the derivative of anything of that form is a*c*x^(a-1)
<1> so like 2*x^3 would be 3*2*x^(3 - 1) = 6*x^2
<1> calc 2 is kind of weird at first, it's sort of when you first get into 3D, or at least it was for me
<1> like the volumes of solids of revolution stuff threw me off a bit at first
<1> it's really a good idea to try and build a good geometric understanding of calculus
<1> the formulae become intuitive instead of just crap you have to remember
<1> since i doubt you'll be required to prove any of it, especially on the business/economics track
<3> uh oh
<3> not again
<1> something that has really nice applications to business and economics exists called "doubly stochastic measures" which is a branch of measure theory that is mostly applied to probability, which you'll likely use if you go far on that trail.
<4> But true mathematical knowledge is only demonstrated through proofs!
<1> yes
<1> but in the business/economics calc sequence, they're not really concerned with true mathematical knowledge, more with method.
<1> but stuff like doubly stochastic measures, i mean, you at least have to have a good understanding of the idea of measures and a good background in set theory to understand it
<1> since you use like sigma-algebrae etc. in it
<2> when doing interval notation, ( is exclusive and [ is inclusive right?
<1> yes
<1> (3, 9] = {4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9}
<0> uh
<1> excluding the real numbers between the integers
<1> =p
<0> heh
<1> a better way of saying it is to say that if some variable x is in the interval (3, 9], it is such that 3 < x <= 9
<1> so x can take on any value greater than 3 and as large as 9, no matter how little larger it is than 3, like 3.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 would be in there
<2> well, goodnight guys
<4> Good night.
<1> night
<1> good luck with calc
<2> thanks
<2> err, whoops
<2> anyway, idleish time
<5> hi
<6> hello
<5> como estas! (my keyboard is not set up right for the proper accents)
<4> Hi.
<5> I have a lighthearted question
<5> concerning thermodynamics
<5> if anyone is interested
<4> sure
<5> I have one of them mini fridges, but it is old and does not seem to keep a low temp anymore
<5> but I think it is cooler than room temp, but not by much
<5> If I go get a very cold beer upstairs and put it in this mini fridge that already has a couple beers in it
<5> will the couple beers get a little bit cooler?
<5> i know too many variables, but this thing is one of those things you see in those rags that has its own inverter so you can plug it into a cigaretter lighter
<5> about the size of a small cooler, since volume probably matters
<5> ok, so y'all ran away fast
<5> don't like drinking beer?
<5> or am I'm turning into a damn scientist and wanting a high caliper gauge that just so happens to measure temperature
<4> Well, I don't agree with drinking beer.
<4> But I also don't think I know enough thermodynamics to be able to help.
<5> Dacicus, sorry, how about an alternative cold beverage of your choice?
<4> The knowledge thing is more of an impediment than the identity of the beverage.
<5> indeed, and agreed, many variables involved and I don't really know how to begin other than finding a mathematician
<7> i need a bit of help for noobing out first day back at school
<7> x^(3/2) * (x + x^(5/2) - x^2)
<4> noobing out?
<7> how would you simplify that
<4> oh
<5> simplify to what?
<4> Well, I suppose it depends on what simplify means in this case, but I would factor out the x.
<7> simplify like
<7> you would simply (x-4)/(x^2 - 3x - 4)
<8> i would distribute, how would you factor out the x?
<8> well, i guess you could factor out 1x
<5> I would simplify to be more specific on order of operations
<8> hmm?
<5> but what would that be?
<7> actually
<7> I furthered myself
<8> i dont get what you would do other than distributing, and possibly factoring that.
<5> no you didnt
<7> i now have x^(5/2) + x^(8/2) - x^(7/2)
<5> you changed your name to navy
<7> how would you compile that per se
<5> you should have been a marine, but thats your problem
<7> x^(n1/b) + x^(n2/b) = ?
<7> fuk it
<8> navy: you can factor out x^2 I think... but thats not the correct expansion in the first place
<8> or wait
<8> it is, my bad
<7> i guess thats as far as i can factor out
<5> them beginning nuclear cl***es are a bit overwhelming for new navy candidates
<7> true dat
<7> %mbot 1^(5/2)
<7> % 1^(5/2)
<5> work it out, hang in there and don't talk, write, speak like an idiot
<9> navy: 1
<8> dsb must be the new troll in town
<5> indeed
<7> ok in the end x^(3/2)*(x + x^(5/2) - x^2) = x
<7> ...i hope..let me check
<5> I loathe myspace speek
<7> % 3^(3/2)*(3 + 3^(5/2) - 3^2)
<9> navy: 3*Sqrt[3]*(-6 + 9*Sqrt[3])
<7> k that doesn't help me at all
<10> What exactly are you finding ?
<8> indeed
<8> :)
<8> we just found out it was an equation! :P
<7> it's not an equation
<7> im just simplifying
<7> you guys are just overanalyzing :(
<7> <7> simplify like <7> you would simply (x-4)/(x^2 - 3x - 4)
<8> navy: i dont see how x^(5/2) + x^(8/2) - x^(7/2) could simplify to just be x
<7> it couldn't
<7> i was wrong
<7> i tried to pull out an x
<7> i guess thats as simple as it gets
<10> % x^(3/2) * (x + x^(5/2) - x^2) //FullSimplify
<9> Olathe: x^(5/2)*(1 - x + x^(3/2))
<10> % x^(3/2) * (x + x^(5/2) - x^2) //Expand
<9> Olathe: x^(5/2) - x^(7/2) + x^4
<8> I would have just taken out an x^2, but I guess thats better
<8> although... distributing and then factoring seems a little silly :) And frankly, it's not much "simpler" :)
<7> true
<7> but you know what i mean
<7> at least i know what the teaacher means
<7> except maybe i don't
<7> because Sqrt[x]/x looks pretty simple to me
<7> well 1/sqrt[x] i guess
<7> but then there's a radical in the denominator
<8> x^(-1/2) would be simpler
<8> and the two things you said aren't equivalent
<5> depends
<8> no it doesnt depend
Return to
#math
or
Go to some related
logs:
#php
Apache 2.2 binary
#fedora
run an eggdrop on a linksys router
noautodetect broken
debian optiplex gx520
#web
#math
ubuntu sources list apache 2.0.55
#web
|
|