| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Comments:
<0> thats the quadratic formula
<1> yeah but like i stated before my math knowledge is almost none
<2> Repost from efnet. Anyone familiar with PDE's?
<1> pythagorean maths is like the best i can do
<1> i need more knowledge in this area tho
<0> PDE: expand the contraction
<3> bXi: the quadratic formula is pretty much the next big thing after pythagorean both in complexity and importance ;)
<2> I'm trying to solve a modified eigenvalue eq. (the Wave or Helmholty eq):
<2> Hu(x,y)=l*u(x,y)
<2> where H=div(grad(
<2> where l = eigenvalues = k^2 = (w/c)^2
<2> where u(x,y) = vibrations in z direction
<0> oh
<2> The above works fine in Matlab, but what if k=k(x,y)?
<1> eigenvalues?
<0> bXi: dont woory.
<0> *worry.
<0> you do your quadratic formula..
<2> Then it's no longer a discrete eigenvalue eq...
<0> avoid the eigenvalues
<0> poff: osrry.
<0> *sorry.
<0> sorry dude, im only 18.. only going to university next year.. Eigenvalues are beyond me
<0> if only
<2> Nevermind.
<0> d
<4> I came late for poff's question it seems..
<3> It's always a shame ppl sometimes leave so fast after asking a question
<0> who? poff?
<4> Aldaron: definitively ( Noxville: yes)
<5> i've been told about matlab for a long time, but is it a free software
<5> ?
<3> madprog: No it isn't
<5> ok
<5> and why is it so powerful ?
<5> what are its abilities ?
<3> madprog: well, it takes all math to be matrices, and it can do everything you could possibly imagine with them ;). Plus it's easily programmable
<5> ok, good think, so :)
<3> It's also a great tool for visualization and drawing a whatever kind of presentation from any data
<3> See http://www.dspguru.com/sw/opendsp/mathclo2.htm for free alternatives. They won't be as powerful or as pretty, but are certainly useful
<4> madprog: it is thougth to be a programming language for scietifical computation. Essentially it is very good at working with vectors and matrices and it has a lot of high-level function that saves you time. The mayor drawback is that it is an interpreted language and not compiled (so it's not incredibly fast sometimes)
<5> J_B: something like python, but oriented to mathematics :)
<3> It's actually incredibly slow sometimes, at least comparing to something else. I recall a program for decoding a normal jpg image took almost a minute or so to finish the job
<4> madprog: something like that :) For easy use I still prefer Mathematica, if you search for speed I think fortran or C++ are still the best
<0> J_B:
<3> fortran probably for mathematics. C++ is very cumbersome for matrix stuff. Unless maybe you find a nice library for that, but it's all there waiting for you in matlab and fortran
<4> Noxville: yes?
<0> do you know of a program that can take in a matrix
<0> and find its ..
<0> um
<0> inverse
<0> thats the word
<6> matlab?
<3> yeah, matlab for example ;)
<4> Noxville: you mean a free software or a software in general?
<0> nice GUI based softwar.
<4> Noxville: with mathematica you type Inverse[m] (where m is your matrix) and you get the inverse :)
<4> but mathematica is definitively not free :(
<0> I've got mathematic
<0> [through warez]
<0> but..
<0> its not very nice
<0> i'm looking for a simple GUI program
<0> that i can click
<0> 4x4 matrix
<0> or whatever
<0> put in data
<0> then go...
<0> "Find Inverse"
<3> Noxville: See http://www.bluebit.gr/matrix-calculator/
<0> that could be kewl
<0> i mean
<5> $99 for the student edition :/
<0> i could make a C++ one
<0> ah
<0> but
<3> Noxville: see the link I just pasted
<0> i don't know Jordan-Gauss elimination
<0> and im not learning it.
<5> Noxville: have you heard about WIMS ?
<0> WIMS? no
<4> Noxville: if mbot was working you should do such easy calculation directly in this chan
<0> the thing is .
<5> look for WWW Interactive Multipurpose Server on google
<0> that where i need it .. i might not have internet
<5> hmm, as a free software, you could install it on a local server
<3> Noxville: learn to use mathematica. Or get Octave and learn that. Nothing is nice unless you do some learning.
<0> I suppose.
<0> I had a nice program that did Karnaugh maps
<0> it was simple
<5> http://wims.unice.fr/wims/wims.cgi?lang=en&+session=OM4100D194.1&+module=home
<0> smooths
<0> fast
<0> and effective
<0> any suggestions?
<3> see above >:(
<0> the http://wims.unice.fr/wims/wims.cgi?lang=en&+session=OM4100D194.1&+module=home one?
<0> J_B:
<4> Noxville: <3>Noxville: See http://www.bluebit.gr/matrix-calculator/ (it does look like what you were searching, why you don't take a look at it?)
<7> germans must be really really alienated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
<7> oh anyway
<7> forgot that was offtopic
<7> gotta get back to measure theory
<4> spx2: people are stupid worldwide, you don't need to search in germany for that :) (and I'm also going back to my multiple scattering problems)
<0> J_B: the link seems dead.
<0> oh that
<0> um
<0> that one is okay.
<7> are the logs of #math stored anywhere ? i thought maybe if i have some questiomns , i could make some perl script to search those
<7> or some seminars...
<7> those would be very nice too
<8> spx2: i recall some #math channel having logs stored online
<9> a coin is flipped and a card is drawn from a standard deck. the probability of getting both a head and a red face card .... is that simply (1/2) + (6/52) ?
<8> no
<8> suppose i asked you for the probability of getting both a head and a number card
<8> what would you say it was if you did whatever you did there?
<9> including aces?
<9> or excludnig.
<10> either
<9> i suppose it wouldent be (1/2) + (40/52 ) haha...
<10> travis, what's that number? (roughly)
<9> 1.26 roughly
<10> what sticks out to you about that number?
<9> its not a percentage.
<10> right, every probability p must satisfy 0 <= p <= 1
<9> Okay, so if not adding, what do you do?
<10> as for your question, if a is the probability of one event happening, and b is the probability of another event happening, the probability of both happening independently of each other (this is an important requirement) is generally a*b
<9> Oh!
<9> Thanks a lot for the help :)
<11> how do I show that the line l = {x = 7+2t, y = -5+10t, z = 1+5t} is parallell to the plane 5x -2y + 2z = 14 ?
<8> travis, moreover, that should be intuitive
<12> woggle: just insert the xyz-components from the line into the plane equation. if all t's disappear and the equation is correct (=14) the line lies on the plane
<12> err... woobster
<11> MizardX: like this: 5(7+2t) - 2(-5+10t) + 2(1+5t) = 14 ?
<12> yes
<11> all t disapears but I get 47 = 14 :/
<11> still parallell?
<13> heyy
<13> how can i graph the equation y=(1/3)^x
<12> ah.. pararlell, yes... but not on the plane
<11> ok
<11> if they are on the same plane too they have to be 14 = 14 ?
<12> yes
<11> thanks
<13> ?
<14> hmm
<14> is the math bot in?
<14> % solve[e^(pi*i)]
Return to
#math
or
Go to some related
logs:
kidsonspeed
#javascript
mkisofs pakage gentoo
#centos
#qemu
#perl
ubuntu xfgl
.lesshst ubuntu
ubuntu install kde
#web
|
|