Messages

1171

Introductions! / Re: Arakasi

« on: June 05, 2006, 11:37:50 pm »

Woo, a new person who knows the meaning of captalization and grammar! WELCOME!

 

1172

Introductions! / Re: poofycakes to the rescue!

« on: June 01, 2006, 12:32:03 pm »

Yeah, but pestering him about it won't make it change.  He's doing it intentionally to bug you guys.  Whoever that is has signed up for the purpose of doing things that people in this clan constantly express a dislike for, while trying to be funny about it.   I'm sure he knows some of you under a different alias.

He knows what country Yoni's from, he knows about Skywing, yet he's never been on the vL forums?  C'mon guys, open your eyes!  .  He wants you to pester him about grammar, etc.

1 guy came up and tried to tackle me, i uppercuted him in before he got me and pushed him into the wall while one of the guy's came to punch me, i ducked and hit him in his face and he dropped like poopie goin into the toilet. but i won so it's all good in the hood right?

i got suspended 4 10 days and my mom was so proud of me weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

*lol*

1173

Introductions! / Re: poofycakes to the rescue!

« on: June 01, 2006, 12:20:22 pm »

Haha, you guys are so tied up into being pedantic that I think you all got *really* taken.  I can see some intelligence underlying poofy's posts: perhaps like in Dumb & Dumber, you'd have to be a little smart to be that dumb.  I repeat Newby's question, "who are you" really?

Administrators: ip lookup?

Edit:  Like Poofy though, I think this is pretty funny.  Too bad I spoke

1174

General Discussion / Re: Babies aborted for not being perfect

« on: May 31, 2006, 09:40:00 pm »

not all suck, but some do because people are evil.  i dont understand how people can just use others to get what they want without caring

Well ofcourse.. People are not always kind to one another and are very greedy... It is to be expected.

People suck.....thats why I support abortion.  I dont want an innocent child to have experience people or maybe even to grow up & become one of those mean people.  There are few good ones left it seems

In general, I support the right for someone to choose whether they wany to abort or not.  I think it's arbitrary that pro-lifers choose to draw the line at a fertilized egg, and in many cases they [pro-lifers] can't defend their position beyond saying "it's just wrong," or "ending human life is wrong."  Of course, the former response cannot be adequately exemplified, and the latter response is inevitably met with a consideration of at what point one should consider human "life" valuable: why a fertilized egg, why not a sperm, etc?  (Note, a fertilized egg will require a lot of intervention to become a developed baby, as will a sperm.  Neither will become human life through some moderately self-sustaining process).   I also think that people who say aborting in the early stages of pregnancy is "murder" are using "loaded language," as iago would put it, and are more venting an irrational hatred rather than thinking logically.

Aside from *all of that*, it's obvious that abortion is an issue of major controversy.  The public is not even close to being able to decide on whether or not it is morally wrong, or in what cases it is morally wrong.  For that reason alone, to legislate based on a moral opinion that a strong majority of people do not hold, would be absolutely ludicrous.  I think it's funny that conservatives in general are "pro-life," because in a way their opinion is being tugged in opposite directions between two loyalties: one is non-secular, and one is the conservative ideology.   In a way it's hypocritical -- they are pro-government intervention.... and Crazed always talks about "liberal hypocrisy."  Realize most of these labels are political propaganda planted in your minds .  Note: I am not particularly "left-wing."

**However**, I feel that aborting a baby in late stages of development for minor birth defects is fairly outrageous, and that anyone who does so is disgustingly self-centred and superficial.  Whether or not I think it should be stopped is something I would have to consider.  My gut reaction is "yes," but then again, it's not good to form legislative opinions based on immediate emotional reactions.

1175

Academic / School / Re: Horizontal Asymptote

« on: May 30, 2006, 12:37:30 pm »

3.) If the exponents of the numerator and denominator are the same, the limit will be a constant of the numerator's greatest-power coefficient times the factorial of the power, divided by the denominator's greatest-power coefficient times the factorial of the power (in the example it was 6*5!/12*5!).  I believe that the series will be convergent, but I can't remember for sure.

I just noticed this.  I'm not sure what you mean "series will be convergent.."?

Rule 3) can be simplified. 
"If the [degree of the polynomial in] the numerator and denominator are the same, the limit will be" equal to the quotient of the coefficient of the highest power in the numerator to the coefficient highest power in the denominator.   

Using L'Hopital's rule (in this case only applicable if the limits are taken at infinity):       
e.g.  [a*x^n + ... lower order polynomial]/[b*x^n + ... lower order polynomial]
lim x--> infinity
= [a*n! + (0.. the lower order polynomial has dissapeared through differentiation) ] / (b*n!)
the factorials cancel, and you are left with a/b

Preferable (no calculus required):
If the limits are approaching infinity, divide top and bottom by x^n
lim x --> infinity  [a*xⁿ/xⁿ + ... lower order polynomial/xⁿ]/[b*xⁿ/xⁿ + .. lower order polynomial / (xⁿ)]

= a/b   as  the x^n approaches infinity faster than a polynomial of degree less than n

1176

Academic / School / Re: Horizontal Asymptote

« on: May 30, 2006, 02:56:05 am »

Ah, I'll do it; the proof is kind of cool, and might help people understand limits better, etc..

(Note, the proof was mostly done from scratch, so there may be errors):
The Mean Value Theorem:
If a function w is continuous, real valued, and differentiable on the real interval [a,b], there exists a c in [a,b] such that

w'(c) = [w(b)-w(a)] / [b-a].  Essentially the derivative at some point along the curve is equal to the slope of the secant line from a to b (this is a bit intuitive).


Apply the mean value theorem to
r(x) = f(x)[g(b)-g(a)] - g(a)[f(b)-f(a)]

You will find that
f'(c) / g'(c)  = [f(b)-f(a)] / [g(b)-g(a)]

Now imagine f(a) and g(a) --> 0. 
f'(c) / g'(c) = f(b)/g(b) .   Now since c is in [a,b], if we let b-->a, then c must also approach a.
So, f'(b)/g'(b) = f(b)/g(b) so long as f(b) , g(b) --> 0 as b --> a.

This is also why L'Hopital's rule works if the numerator and denominator both approach something infinite (e.g. numerator could --> infinity, denominator could approach --> -infinity):

Assume w(b) / m(b) = infinite value / infinite value as b-->a

[1/w(b)]  / [1/m(b)] =  0/0 as b--> a  = d/db [ 1/w(b) ] /  d/db[1/m(b) ]
Using the chain rule,
 m(b)/w(b)  = [-w'(b)/w(b)²] / [-(m'(b)/m(b)²]
= w'(b)*m(b)² / [w(b)²*m'(b)]
or,
w(b)/m(b) = w'(b)/m'(b)  as b--> a.

That was fun  .   I was a bit scared for a minute because it didn't look like the infinite case would work out at first.

1177

Academic / School / Re: Horizontal Asymptote

« on: May 30, 2006, 01:23:11 am »

Also, limits don't need to be taken to infinity.  They can be found at any point along the function.

Not quite true.  The numerator and the denominator have to both be approaching infinity or zero for l'hopital's rule to work. 

For example

lim x--> 2    [3x+2] / (3x)  = 8/6, but lim x-->2 of d/dx(3x+2)/ d/dx(3x) = 3/3 = 1 != 8/6.

Challenge:  Prove L'hopital's rule.
Trivia: L'Hopital bought L'Hopital's rule from the Bernoulli family .

(Nate):  Also, consider 0/0.  And, if y =0 and the denominator is nonzero real, there is an horizontal asymptote at y=0.  But there can be horizontal asymptotes at y={any real number}.  Same goes for vertical asymptotes.
An horizontal asymptote is when y --> or = constant as x--> infinity, or x--> -infinity.  A vertical asymptote is when
x --> or = constant as y--> infinity or -infinity. 

1178

iago's forum / Re: You're evil!

« on: May 28, 2006, 05:14:03 pm »

Another fairly well known Richard Stallman quote:

Why GNU `su' does not support the `wheel' group
===============================================

   (This section is by Richard Stallman.)

   Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the
rest.  For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to
seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and
keeping it secret from everyone else.  (I was able to thwart this coup
and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't
know how to do that in Unix.)

   However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone.  Under the usual
`su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes
with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest.  The "wheel
group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of
the rulers.

   I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers.  If you are
used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you
might find this idea strange at first.

       This program does not support a "wheel group" that restricts who can su
       to super-user accounts, because that can help fascist  system  adminis-
       trators hold unwarranted power over other users.

1179

General Discussion / Re: William of Ockham

« on: May 27, 2006, 03:52:49 pm »

"Furthermore, when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood."

Hehe, it depends on what the assumptions are.  For example, we could have a theory with 1 (massive) assumption, and another with 20 tiny axioms, and the latter theory could still be superior.  Although I agree, in the form you quoted, the statement is a lot more appealing.  I guess it's just one of those situations where I think, "hey, I could have pulled that out of nowhere, so why does he get to be so famous!" .  I'm also kind of bitter because I often get shut down (irl) by some silly biologist who blurts out "Occam's razor" because he/SHE can't comprehend what I'm talking about. 

1180

General Discussion / Re: William of Ockham

« on: May 26, 2006, 10:27:06 pm »

I quite despise Occam's razor.  First of all, what is "simple" is very subjective, and so is what is "best."  So why is this regarded as such a profound statement?  Further, a lot of scientists (esp. biologists) get overly keen on Occam's "simple is best" axiom, and end up horribly oversimplifying complicated processes.  (..Those biologists  )

I think it's one of those lightweight statements that sounds quite rhetorically pleasing, so somehow it has managed to ground its way into being thought of as profound logic.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler."

1181

Academic / School / Re: Does your school have reading time?

« on: May 19, 2006, 03:10:26 am »

Well, if we must be pedantic,    :

I made the word itallic because it was misspelled, hehe.

italic

1182

Academic / School / Re: Does your school have reading time?

« on: May 19, 2006, 01:40:53 am »

However, insoluble means something cannot be dissovled.

Hmm,insoluable is jargon we use sometimes for "cannot be resolved."  But I just tried looking it up on dictionary.com, and it's not there.  That's pretty weird :x.  I've seen it written in books on chaos theory.

It may also surprise some people (who've known me for awhile, like iago) to know that my primary language is not english  .

1183

Academic / School / Re: Does your school have reading time?

« on: May 19, 2006, 01:02:33 am »

Well, take it from someone who works professionally in mathematical physics that I find physics considerably more difficult.  There's a lot more to remember, and often there are a lot of tricks, special insights and approximations that are valued in physical problems and aren't really considered in mathematics.

Then again, it depends how your mind works.  Like I said, AP Calculus BC was my easiest AP.

What do you mean by "working professionally?"  I think it's almost necessary that you provide details when you make those sorts of claims ...

I study modern differential geometry with applications to general relativity and computational physics.  Most of my work involves determining finite difference schemes to solve and visualize the solutions to time dependent systems of partial differential equations that are analytically insoluable.  One application, for example, is in modelling a binary black hole merger.

Calculus is like a mother tongue .  Seriously though, I think physics in general is a lot harder than math, but some people would disagree with me.  I just think there's a lot more to consider in physics.

1184

Academic / School / Re: Does your school have reading time?

« on: May 18, 2006, 11:27:13 pm »

I wouldn't agree with that.  To me AP Calculus was probably the easiest AP.  It completely depends on your strengths and how the material is taught;  for example, I would have found AP Biology considerably more difficult.  To many in AP Calculus BC, AP Comp Sci AB or AP Physics C would have seemed more intimidating or difficult.

I would say AP Calculus BC is the most useful course in the AP curriculum (and will help one most in university),  although that's a pretty subjective opinion.

Physics is applied calculus.  I don't see how you could find it more difficult.

Well, take it from someone who works professionally in mathematical physics that I find physics considerably more difficult.  There's a lot more to remember, and often there are a lot of tricks, special insights and approximations that are valued in physical problems and aren't really considered in mathematics.

Then again, it depends how your mind works.  Like I said, AP Calculus BC was my easiest AP.

1185

Academic / School / Re: Does your school have reading time?

« on: May 17, 2006, 10:05:52 pm »

There are two AP classes offered to sophomores and I'm taking both, though. I've never seen an LD kid take an AP class, which is what pisses me off - people mix EBD (the angry kids) up with LD (the stupid kids).

It doesn't matter.  AP Calculus far transcends almost every other AP class offered.

I wouldn't agree with that.  To me AP Calculus was probably the easiest AP.  It completely depends on your strengths and how the material is taught;  for example, I would have found AP Biology considerably more difficult.  To many in AP Calculus BC, AP Comp Sci AB or AP Physics C would have seemed more intimidating or difficult.

I would say AP Calculus BC is the most useful course in the AP curriculum (and will help one most in university),  although that's a pretty subjective opinion.