/sci/ - Science & Math

Why is it that when applying Ampere's Law to a solenoid of N turns you approximate the enclosed current to N times current times length, but when dealing with a toroidal coil you make the enclosed current just = N*I? Makes no sense.

It's official: ampere was a shit faced idiot.

OP again, with another example. This one is from my textbook. I'm asked to show that:
(a + b)/2 is greater than or equal to the square root of ab.
After some work, and probably more work than it should take I realize that it has to do with the fact that the arithmetic sum remains the same as a and b change, whilst the geometric one doesn't. I demonstrated this with a graph, using 100 as the sum of a and b.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=f%28x%29+%3D+%28root+of+x%28100+-+x%29%29+and+f%28x%29+%3D+%28x+%2B+%28100+-+x%29%29+%2F+2
But I have no clue on how to make it "formal" or even how to recognize the process of proving things in general. I have more of a natural talent for problem solving, and I really need some way of organizing this proof-creating method.

Fuck /sci/ help. I understand the proof for the change of base formula, but I don't grasp it intuitivly. All other logarithmic identities seemed obvious to me, but this one doesn't.

I tried doing:

<span class="math">
log_4(64) = log_2(64)/log_2(4)
[\math]

by saying that 4*4*4 = 2*2*2*2*2*2 and converting it to base 2 that way, to perhaps grasp it better but that didn't really work. I'd love if any of you could assist me with this. I know it's kind of a difficult thing to do, but I'd really appreciate it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_identities#Changing_the_base[/spoiler]

>trying to draw conclusions from a sample of one

[spoiler]/sci/, enlighten me to the latest "gay gene" theories at hand.

Humor me.</spoiler>

>>4176602
>I'm no expert on medicine or homeopathos, i havent studied biology since year 10, so, with the knowledge I have on hand I cannot discount the possibility that homeopathic remedies have some effect.

Please stop.

>>4159150

>The entire thread just to establish basic facts that scientist agree on.

It's really depressing, isn't it?

>>4126494
>>4127232

ATTN: Anybody who buys into the simplistic "more CO2 is always good for plants" argument should be aware that the graphs that are bandied about are often based on old, carefully controlled experiments, not indicative what actually happens in nature.

See here for more research-based info:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

>>4062924

Stop with the POE shit, it's not funny.

>>3912269
Right, not medicine. In neuroscience, pharmacological challenge is used to study neuronal function. Not the efficacy of medication. That's done in clinical trials.

>>3670444
>alenis vist all ancient cultures
>thats why all have monolithic makings like giant triangle in engypt and on other side of world they have indian giant triangles
>also vimanas form india they design spaceships in ancient time how? with alien god
>also read magna carta

FUCK YOU TROLLS, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE HERE!!!

sure fail on my chemistry exam today -> not getting into uni -> life is over.
Trips and an hero /sci/

Your face when you realize there's a fair possibility that somewhere out there, some civilization already discovered the means to do antigravity, FTL travel and teleportation.

Are woman's squirts real?

>>2907724
>almost bite of a big piece, but dont finish.

>This thread

>>2859354
>laws of life
4/10

>>2859367
Laws work in defined conditions, like the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to evolution because the earth is not a closed system.

Warp drive.

I'm building a prototype in my basement.

Einstein, Darwin, Klauss, Skinner

mfw pretty much everyone on /sci/ will have to google Skinner

>mfw i came up with a clever new function and realized that it's already been discovered
i wrote an algorithm and everything for it and now i find out mathemiticans discovered this centuries ago

i dont know if i should be mad or happy that i came up with the idea on my own

(i'm talking about the divisor function btw)