You are not logged in.
hi ryanjaberan
Welcome to the forum.
This problem has taken me back 53 or so years. Had to rework some formulas.
I think the answer is
If that's correct then I'll post my method. If it's not, break it to me gently.
Bob
Yes it is.
Wow! You've heard of Spike Milligan. My Dad had that record on a bakelight 78 rpm disc. Surely you're too young?
Bob
Yes it does. A question ought to start by defining which direction is positive. I think we had this in a previous post where an object was being thrown upwards. You can take up or down as the positive direction but this needs to be consistent throughout the question. eg. if 'up' is positive then gravity is -g.
Bob
That's a fair description. I'll stick to across and up in the future.
Bob
The correct terms for the across and up axes are abscissa and ordinate. Descartes thought up the coordinate system and used x and y, so those have kind of stuck. The page where I found the definitions of abscissa and ordinate even used x and y to explain which is which
So it is good practice to always label each axis and it's perfectly ok to use your own symbols where the context suggests it (such as t across for time).
It is also usual to make x the independent variable (ie. the one whose values we can choose) and y the dependent variable (ie. the one whose values depend on a formula involving x).
But usual, not compulsory.
In 3D coordinates x is usually shown going right, y going back into the page, and z going up.
Is it confusing? Yes, probably, but using x for time would be worse I think. A graph is just a way to make a picture out of a mathematical model and usually helps. Choosing the right variables will help if the grapher says what and why.
Saying at the start what symbols you're going to use is essential. In logic there are several ways to indicate logic operators such as AND, OR, IMPLIES etc. And it is common to use a dot to replace a multiplication symbol to avoid confusion with a variable x. In an Argand diagram the up axis labels have an 'i' to indicate an 'imaginary' number, but some folk use 'j'.
Bob
Not all authorities agree that a scalar must be positive.
Eg. Temperature is a scalar and on some scales can be negative.
Bob
You say 'initial' and 'final' so I'm assuming you're using v = u + at.
I think v and u here are vectors. It's what I was taught .... velocity a vector, speed a scalar. But I tried google. The first 17 hits all had v as a vector. None as a scalar.
Strictly there should be some indication such as an overline or bold print,
but nobody seems to bother. But I guess that's why Khan thinks scalar.
In practice it'll come out in the calculation, so don't worry too much about the distinction.
Bob
hi Mageurna
Welcome back to the forum.
Bob
distance and time are defined as fundamental units https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Fundamental_units
Speed is a derived unit.
The ancients certainly had the concept. Mariners, for example, would throw a piece of wood overboard to estimate the speed of their ship. And I'm sure many horses were sold taking account of their speed.
Speed is a rate of change (of distance with respect to time) but it doesn't seem like they had the idea of miles per hour (using their own unit for distance).
So maybe Galileo was the first to do this.
Bob
6 feet is scalar but deep implies a direction ie downwards so that makes it a vector.
If you were standing in a trench, 6 feet deep, and you fired an arrow upwards you'd have to use the equations of motion to determine what happens next. Those equations use vector quantities, ( except time).
Bob
I can see there's a lion approaching. Would you just like to run in a random direction or would it be helpful to know which direction is best?
My ship is wanting to intercept another ship on the ocean. It is also moving. How do I plot a course so that we meet at some place ahead? Shall I just choose a new speed or might it also be useful to consider the direction of travel?
Three ropes are tied together in a knot. Two others are ready to pull on their ropes and want me to pull also so that, together, our forces exactly balance. Do you think it matters which directions we each choose for our pull?
Bob
The forum moved to a new server in March '21 (I'll call this moment the 'change'). Since then avatar uploads have not been possible. But members with avatars from before the change still have them so the code controlling them in a members profile still works. Just the upload is faulty.
I've searched all the admin options available to me and found nothing to turn this back on. It's odd that Ganesh and I can get to the upload page. Is this because we are admin, or just that we already have avatars?
I'm reluctant to try it for myself in case I lose the one I have. But I can log in on an unused account so I might try an experiment. Also might try making a new admin just so I can test if uploads will work.
Looks like there's some code missing from the new forum but I don't have acccess to that.
LATER EDIT: Promoting a user to admin didn't work. The link led to the upload screen but the file wouldn't upload.
EVEN LATER EDIT: I've tried to change the avatar for a very old member who last posted in 2005 and would be banned today due to the nature of their posts. That member had an avatar. An attempt at using the link gave the usual error message.
YET ANOTHER EDIT: I've taken the risk and tried to change my own avatar. Couldn't upload one. Conclusion: No one can upload at present whatever their status.
Bob
hi Ganesh,
The link works for me as 'bob' but not as 'alter ego' , a member. It'll be interesting to find out if it works for ktesla39
Bob
Actually it's worse than that. I should have calculated the area of CEG. So that calculation is completely wrong.
It should be:
0.5 times EC^2 times root(3)/2 which for my diagram comes out as 0.88
Still working on an analytic solution.
Bob
hi
Has your account been hacked? I've deleted a post that I'm sure wasn't made by you and, as a precaution, changed the password on the account.
Please reply here as a new member so we can sort this out (ie. get you back in control of the account)
Bob
I'm assuming you used Geogebra and moved a point around until you reached a minimum. I did that using Sketchpad and got this:
I feel that there ought to be an analytical way to do this, so I'm working on that.
Bob
Is their answer good enough? I'd say no .... a lot has been left out. Your proof is much better.
Bob
Yes, for my random choice for a and b. You can try it with your own choices.
Bob
I've found a way.
step 1. consider a parabola with F = (0,a) and D is y = -a
If (x,y) is the general point on this parabola
Set a = 1/4 and we have y = x^2, so this well known curve is a parabola.
step 2. let a = 1/(4A) => y = Ax^2 is also a parabola.
step 3. Transform this by vector (0,d) => y = Ax^2 + d is a parabola.
step 4. consider y = ax^2 + bx + c
let the bracketed term be d/a
By the vector transform X = x + b/(2a) this becomes y = AX^2 + d and so is also a parabola.
Thus all quadratics of the form y = ax^2 + bx + c are parabolas.
Bob
I'm working on a proof that all curves of the form y = ax^2 + bx + c are parabolas.
Progress so far:
y = x^2 fairly easy.
y = ax^2 not too much harder.
y = ax^2 + bx
y = ax^2 + bx + c follows easily by translation.
Bob
The defining property of a parabola is as follows.
There is a point called the focus.
There is a line called the directrix.
The parabola is the locus of all points such that the distance to the directrix is equal to the distance to the focus
focus (1.5, 2) directrix y = 0 (ie the x axis)
Let a point on the parabola have coordinates (x,y)
Equating these:
I shall explore some properties of parabolas based on the defintion.
Left part of diagram.
Let the focus be F. There must be at least one point on the parabola that is nearest to the directrix. Let that point be R and let S be the point on the directrix so that FR = RS. I know that RS must be perpendicular to the directrix (distance implies shortest distance) but I have not assumed that FRS is a straight line
But FR = RS, so the triangle FRS is isosceles. Let T be the midpoint of FS. Then FT = TS so T is a point on the parabola and it is nearer than R. Unless R=T in which case FRS is a straight line.
So R is unique and FRS is perpendicular to the directrix.
Second part of diagram.
Let P be a point on the parabola and Q the point on the directrix so that FP = PQ.
Reflect P and Q in the line FRS to give points P' and Q'.
FP' = P'Q' so P' is also on the parabola.
So FRS is a line of symmetry for the parabola.
Bob
hi
a and b are vectors. They could be any vectors. I've just chosen a couple of random ones. 2a + b means go along a twice and then b once. I've shown the resultant vector in green.
Note that I've started them anywhere on the diagram, since the magnitude and direction is the same wherever you start from. When adding them I've started the second vector from where the first left off.
If they were vectors to show movement then you can see where you'd end up if you did 2a + b as a journey. They could also be forces in which case 2a + b shows the result of combining the forces.
Bob
Ok so I didn't read the question.
So now I'm getting
3^(n-1) (1/2)^(n-1) (3/4)^(n-1)
When n=1 don't we want just one white triangle?
Bob
hi JohnG
Welcome to the forum.
I just did this:
What did you expect to happen?
Phro. y = x^2 is a simple example of a parabola.
Bob
hi Phro,
I agree with your answers to a and c but not b.
When we start I'll take it that n = 0; we have a single white triangle side =1
At step 1 the white triangles have side = 1/2 = 1/(2^1)
At step 2 the white triangles have side = 1/4 = 1/(2^2)
.....................
If you spot a sequence and use it to get algebraic answers that seems ok to me. But all that's missing is to prove that the sequences are valid. You can do that by, for instance, in each step the previous number of whites is made into four new smaller triangles, one of which is blue so 3/4 are still white. So each step increases the number of whites by a multiplier of times 3/4
Bob