You are not logged in.
I'm only on level 9, so if I have to beat it to move on with life, I hope I have a long life.
PS is my sig any better? e is a cooler number anyways.
DROD has ruined my life. That's all I do all day now... Curse you DROD!
Nice, thanks.
.
Ahhhhhh, I went here: http://calc101.com/webMathematica/deriv … sp#topdoit To try to figure it out, but I don't get it.
Usually I don't get stuck with calc, but I really don't get their explanation.
Can you guys give me a step by step on this one, this just doesn't make sense.
Thanks, the 2nd question seems pretty hard lol
I'm sure there's an easier way to do it, I just always take the long way around.
Ok, I know there's gotta be an easier way to do this...
so:
Moving on...
And now the finale:
Possibly one of the most round-about ways of getting the answer...
I hope I didn't make any mistakes...
Because log(a) + log(b) = log(ab)
Because 10^log(a) = a
So the positive value is x = 1.
I'm only on level 3 but I've been playing all night, yeah, I'm hooked.
Exactly mikau, thanks for the picture.
Very helpful Ricky.
THANKS!
(thats (THANKS)(THANKS-1)(THANKS-2)...(3)(2)(1) by the way)
Thanks! Which syllable has the emphasis? LOW-pee-tal, low-PEE-tal or low-pee-TAL?
Ok, so:
I can show this l'Hôpital's rule:
But here's my question. When writing out the derivation for:
you have to at some point use the fact the lim (x->0) sin(x)/x = 1. I can't prove that it's true with out using l'Hôpital's rule. l'Hôpital's rule requires the use of the derivative of sin(x). I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear, but this seems to me like circular reasoning. Can anyone show me a proof of:
That does NOT use l'Hôpital's rule? I can do it graphically, but somehow that doesn't seem like it's good enough...
P.S. Bonus points for anyone who can tell me how to pronounce l'Hôpital by spelling it phonetically.
That's actually why I asked. I'm trying to keep a notebook of Math I know, in case I ever need to go back and find a proof for something, I'll have it written down. I was writing up the proof that:
When I noticed that it'd be easier to do if I had a name for the function. For example, if I say that:
Then it's easy to show that
but easier to write:
Solving for S(X) gives:
With out defining S(x) it becomes very tedious to write. I was just wondering if I should use S in my notes or if there was a commonly use letter to denote it.
By set variable, I mean a letter that denotes that function universally. If I tell you about a function "f" I could be talking about any function I've made up, but if I tell you about the Gamma function, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Does this infinite series have a "name" that everyone knows?
Does the series
Have a set variable like the Zeta function or the Gamma function?
Like
I'm just too slow...
How about:
My thought process:
all even numbers can be expressed as 2n and all odd numbers are (2n-1) or (2n+1). The top is simply n, the bottom is aways odd. 2n+1 doesn't work, no how about 2n-1.
Yeah, thanks, That's what I had written down, then when I typed it up, I typed it wrong... It's fixed now. Thanks.
one side is
... I think.I drew a semi circle, and inscribed a square they way I thought it should go. I then drew a line from the center of the base (the point that would be the center if it was a full circle) to one of the upper vertices of the square. This length should be one.
The length of one of the sides of the square can be "s" and because the point is in the middle of the base, the base of the triangle created should be s/2.
so
I think.
EDIT: fixed my answer, thanks krassi_holmz.
Well, I've learned something today, I've never heard of De Moivre's theorem but a few minutes over at wikipedia gave me a clue as to what it is, but I'm having a little trouble applying it. Instead, let's do it the old fashion way:
In step one, I use an exponent rule:
Then I uber-FOILed (made up word there) using pascal's triangle and some basic imaginary rules (actually, I had google do the work, but I can do it here:
I then rationalized it by multiplying the numerator and denominator by the conjugate of 8 + 8i (which is 8-i).
Well, that was fun and time consuming, but it still doesn't really give you what you were looking for.
Trig identities Always get me.
Thanks.
I've spent about an hour on this... and I'm not getting very far.
The table on wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_integrals ) says:
That's a start, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this without a table.
How about you put coins 1,2,3,4 on the left side 5,6,7,8 on the right. If the left is heavier, you know that the heavy coin is either 1,2,3 or 4. If it's the right then, 5,6,7 or 8. If neither then 9,10,11 and 12. No mater what, you end up with four options, a, b, c or d.
weigh ab against cd. if ab is heavier, weigh a against b. If cd is heavier, weigh c against d.
go ahead and do the smaller number divided by the total multiplied by 100.
so:
(23/37)*100 = 62%
(11/37)*100 = 30%
(2/37)*100 = 5%
(1/37)*100 = 3%
total: 100%
I hopes that helps.
EDIT: This is the second time you've beaten me Mikau.
Remember:
Now it's centered at the origin (0,0) so we know that h and k are both 0.
That in mind, out new simplified equation is:
At some point it passes through (10, 8) (so says you) so we know that:
must be true at some point. so:
Now that we know h, k, and r^2 we can say that:
PS: If you have access to a Graphing Calc graph
and to check your answer.Thanks for being so patient with me...
Installed vim and you're right, it's very hard to use. How do I go about using "my favorite text editor?"
EDIT:
Haha! I did it, this is a really great moment for me. vim just confused me, I ended up rewriting the program with Notepad, but you guys helped a lot.
Thanks for everything Ricky.
Thanks for the book suggestion and keeping things light-hearted Mikau.