You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Yep, a particularly nasty mess of them too. I got the plates and some pots done.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

How come it is taking you so long?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

My back bothers me the most when doing jobs around that sink. It is too low and I have to bend a lot. I just go slow and get it done in pieces.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Oh, I see. Would a stool work?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

I do not think so because it would make me taller. The sink was obviously constructed for a smaller person or one with a normal back.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

A lower stool, I mean -- my grandad has one in the bathroom for the sink.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

To sit on or stand on?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

To sit on.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

I wished I had something like that, maybe a bar stool.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I think PJ has some back problem too.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Anybody can get it regardless of age or shape.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I feel it too if I bend down for too long, but it is probably not the same thing.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Actually it is quite funny to see all the ugly little kids in the neighborhood staring at me as I lurch and groan while walking down the street. Their mothers say a little prayer as the monster passes them, to protect them. "Your prayers are useless against me you ugly old skank," I scream. "I am not a monster. I am a human being just like you."

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Hmm, never found a Mother literally uttering prayers in such a scenario...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

You have never had me walking through your streets.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

I have seen some pretty scary ones. There is an elderly man who has a terrible back problem walking along my street every morning, he is almost completely keeling over.

Also, have you done the exercise on evaluating definite integrals via contour integration, in the Schaum's Advanced Calculus (3rd edition) book, Ch. 16 pg 434? There are some interesting problems in there that are quite tricky too, and I am stuck on one.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Hi;

Mine is older than that. Let me see if I have the 3rd edition in here.

Okay, I got it. Which number?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Thanks -- question 16.71.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Okay, checking his answer first before we start.

That is correct. What part can we start looking at?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Since x ≥ 0 and f(x) ≥ 0, we should consider a contour such as this:

In other words, the upper right-hand quarter of a circle, enclosing the whole of the first quadrant.

So we have:

.The residue at the pole

is .And that's as far as I've got, because I don't know what to do next...

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

I do not think that is right. The correct answer here in my notes is π/3

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

What isn't right?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

My error, you are just computing the pole and the residue so that is correct so far. Excuse the confusion, I am looking at two sets of notes that are not yet cleaned up. This is a work in progress for me.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Any progress?

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 81,467

Yes, I have it done by the residue method.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline