Teh Math Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GriffinHeart

actually sorry but the simple one ain't exactly right, since its been a huge problem to determine to what extent the 0 would have weight in large (i really mean large) calculations xP.

---

Interesting point, however it is possibly not a valid one. If Ionic meant all the real numbers with 'all the numbers men have thought up', ie, Q, infinity is not defined in that set.

I'm still waiting to hear his reply to my 'proof' though, if the answer is indeed not 0 I'm very curious what I did wrong then :icon6:

And what about 'unreal' numbers? ^^,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daevius

And what about 'unreal' numbers? ^^,

---

root of -1 = i or j depending on your math disapline :p.

Without it you cant do things like (1/2)x^2 + x + 1 or you end up with root -1, which is ofcourse impossible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert

root of -1 = i or j depending on your math disapline :p.

Without it you cant do things like (1/2)x^2 + x + 1 or you end up with root -1, which is ofcourse impossible!

---

don't just say its impossible,

root -1 is impossible in a real scope and all encapsulated scopes, root -1 is perfectly possible in a imaginary scope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Interesting point, however it is possibly not a valid one. If Ionic meant all the real numbers with 'all the numbers men have thought up', ie, Q, infinity is not defined in that set.

I'm still waiting to hear his reply to my 'proof' though, if the answer is indeed not 0 I'm very curious what I did wrong then :icon6:

---

here's a brain teaser

would +inf - 1 belong to the real scope?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Yes it is :tongue:

See attachment. Again, I think you mean either the cross-product (ie, scalar curl) or divergence, but not the laplacian, unless I'm greatly mistaken in my proof somewhere which I kind'a doubt :Sneaktong

http://forum.ragezone.com/attachment...place_zero.jpg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

I'm still waiting to hear his reply to my 'proof' though, if the answer is indeed not 0 I'm very curious what I did wrong then :icon6:

---

Sorry for the delay. I take to being wrong badly and needed to recover. *takes sedatives*

Anyway (:tongue:) to apply the laplacian to a vector: Vector Laplacian -- from Wolfram MathWorld. Still zero? :tongue5:

[edit]lol. Running out of tongue smilies.
[edit2]As you've written it the del squared in your proof should equal a div grad v. (Your notation may be different though. I'd have del dot del v.)

Also to me it seems what you've done is:
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2...laceel4.th.png

rather than:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4...lacewz4.th.png

which should also give the same non-zero answer as the longer identity in the link above.

Mmm, you know, you might just be right :eh:

Suffice to say I failed my vector calculus course the first time I took it... :icon6: Anyway, if I had to guess I'd say the answer then becomes 6xi :smile:

The reason I thought otherwise by the way:
http://members.home.nl/matthijsdorst...e_operator.jpg

The gradient of your equation is 4i + xzj + 0k, which divergence is of course 0. So basicly I blame my textbook :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Mmm, you know, you might just be right :eh:

---

Of course I am. :smartass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Suffice to say I failed my vector calculus course the first time I took it... :icon6: Anyway, if I had to guess I'd say the answer then becomes 6xk :smile:

---

Well I guess that makes it okay then. Fixed.

*proceeds to watch thread disappear into obscurity*

Alas, soit. It seems there are about 2 people on this entire forum with some experience in advanced mathematics :sad:

How the hell did you get your experience by the way? I mean, this level of mathematics is usually only required for people who study physics, astronomy or mathematics or who really really wanted to become a math teacher. Getting close? :icon6:

If I choose to continue studying I'll be the third but for now I'm happy with what I've got ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Alas, soit. It seems there are about 2 people on this entire forum with some experience in advanced mathematics :sad:

How the hell did you get your experience by the way? I mean, this level of mathematics is usually only required for people who study physics, astronomy or mathematics or who really really wanted to become a math teacher. Getting close? :icon6:

---

It's been mentioned a few times around here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragFrog

Alas, soit. It seems there are about 2 people on this entire forum with some experience in advanced mathematics :sad:

How the hell did you get your experience by the way? I mean, this level of mathematics is usually only required for people who study physics, astronomy or mathematics or who really really wanted to become a math teacher. Getting close? :icon6:

---

Im *supposed* to know this stuff :p Guess itll teach me to go from GCSE maths to degree maths with no a level stuff. Sure if i read through my notes most of this stuff would be there, but seriously if i ever have to do this much math id be in the wrong job!

1+1 = 2

That's my Maths for today. In college, I take Foundations of Advanced Maths (as I take Chemistry & Biology).

It's not as challenging as A levels Maths for but it's quite brain-aching.

2 + 2 = 5

With extremely high values of 2 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daevius

2 + 2 = 5

With extremely high values of 2 ;)

---

that is so right ..... -_-
2+1=0

I don't know how to solve that since i am still a high school student .... sorry frag.

Laplace's equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

heh? he must of been smoking crack