Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

Are your lines coplanars? If so artg slope1 minus arctg slope 2

[lordnincompoop]

Fixed.

EDIT: Double fixed!

[Christes]

Today I found out that I was the only one in my class that remembered "Soh Cah Toa." Thanks, guys. ^_^

*cheers*


Today I was beaten in the face by the Axiom of Choice =/  On the other hand, now I know what it is...

The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?

[dragnar]

Today I found out that I was the only one in my class that remembered "Soh Cah Toa." Thanks, guys. ^_^

*cheers*


Today I was beaten in the face by the Axiom of Choice =/  On the other hand, now I know what it is...

*looks it up on wikipedia*
...
*head asplode*

Yeah... It SHOULD be simple... but it has some crazy results.

[Earthquake Damage]

The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?

I don't know about Zorn's lemma, but aren't the other two logically equivalent?  Isn't that why the axiom of choice is controversial?

[Vector]

The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?

>_____________>

Hurr hurr hurr.

I don't know about Zorn's lemma, but aren't the other two logically equivalent?  Isn't that why the axiom of choice is controversial?

They're all logically equivalent, as is the statement that every surjective function has a right inverse.

IIRC, AoC is controversial because it isn't a very axiom-ish axiom.  It sounds more like something requiring proof than something one can readily accept as a backbone of theory.

[Blargityblarg]

When the bottle is empty, V is zero. Solve for t.

No calculator, and I haven't the foggiest idea how to solve a raised-the-four equation for t. I got that V=0 when the bottle is empty.

[Jim Groovester]

You don't need a calculator.

You can solve that by factoring, or with the quadratic equation. Make a substitution of u = t² to help you see it.

[Christes]

IIRC, AoC is controversial because it isn't a very axiom-ish axiom.  It sounds more like something requiring proof than something one can readily accept as a backbone of theory.

It is a little strange for sure.  It's a bit like the parallel postulate - it doesn't quite fit.  However, it also causes madness like the Banach-Tarski paradox or non-measurable sets.  Most mathematicians like the bizarre results, but some object since they prefer a more intuitive approach. There's a professor at my school who is very opposed to the axiom of choice.  He makes fun of the functional analysists who use it every day.

[Vector]

Yeah, I'm definitely not sure how I feel about it yet.  On the one hand, I like the results.  On the other hand, I'm not so fond of the fact that we can't prove it...

[Fossaman]

This exponential equation has me stumped. I'm supposed to solve for x and approximate to three decimal places.

2^2x - 4 * 2^x = 21

Now, this can be converted to the following, right?

2^2x - 2² * 2^x = 21
thus
2^2x - 2^2+x = 21

I'm pretty sure that I'm supposed to do something fancy with logarithms and the change of base formula at this point, but darned if I know what it is. I can't figure out how to isolate x at all.

[Wyrm]

Logarithms won't help you. Tell me something about this problem: is this a Diophantine equation?

Edit: Of course it isn't Diophantine. It says to estimate to 3 decimal places.

[Fossaman]

Variables as integers only? No. All of the other problems in this set have had irrational decimal answers.

[Vector]

Watching this with bated breath, because I don't know how to solve it, either.

I suck at equation manipulation.

[KaminaSquirtle]

Watching this with bated breath, because I don't know how to solve it, either.

I suck at equation manipulation.

Me too.  May try it, though.
I'll almost assuredly fail.