[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 179 KB, 1920x1080, 000.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2027849 No.2027849 [Reply] [Original]

Hey /Sci/ I need some help here with some homework.
A 50 mg sample of a radioactive substance decays to 34 mg after 30 days. how long will it take for there to be 2 mg remaining.
(pic unrelated, it's a missingno background)

>> No.2027884 [DELETED] 

I got 189 days but I am like 5% sure that is right.

34 = 50 * x^30
Solve for x?
then
2 = 50*x^n
Solve for n as you have x.
Not sure about equation.

>> No.2027885

liek...250 days? give or take....

>> No.2027915
File: 11 KB, 440x255, help1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2027915

>> No.2027928

Half life = 53.919

Time to 2 mg = 250.39 days

>> No.2027944

>>2027928
the fuck has half life got to do with this? you just use 'ln' and shit, yeh?
anyway, you got the same answer as me so STFU...
fucking crowbarring headcrabs has little to do with physics.

>> No.2027955

I also get 250.4 days
The formula is
34 = 50 * e^(-lambda * 30)
where lambda is the decay constant (using that instead of half-life). Wiki half-life if that is confusing.

>> No.2027964

>>2027955
lol you idiot, you are doing it backwards, [e] is the opposite of [ln], you need to use [ln] to get the right answer, look at my pic from earlier.

>> No.2027972

>>2027964
Not me, but I think that most ppl know that to solve the equation in >>2027955
you'd need to use ln... also this has everything to do with half life!

>> No.2027974

>>2027972
pff...portal was better...

>> No.2028019

>>2027964
>EK being retarded as usually.
no, bitch.
<span class="math">N_t = N_0 e^{-\lambda t}[/spoiler]

>> No.2028021

>>2027849
assuming this is math homework, you should also state what the decay should be like...assuming it decays linearly you would get a totally different answer

>> No.2028023

>>2028019
>EK being retarded as usually.
the same retarded EK who gave the correct answer to OP's question...yeh, i'm really retarded arn't I...

>> No.2028029

>>2027849

NO HOMEWORK THREADS YOU SON OF A BITCH

>> No.2028034

>>2028021
radioactive decay works with [ln] like i did it before

>> No.2028038

>>2028029
fuck off! ...keeps me busy at least...

>> No.2028044

I mean seriously,
>radioactive decay question
you say
>the fuck has half life got to do with this?
and call ME an idiot because you can't recognize a rearranged equation? I think you need to cut back on the ganga.

>> No.2028049

>>2028023
Yes, you gave the right answer. Congratulations. Have a banana.

>> No.2028050

>>2028034
>radioactive decay works with [ln] like i did it before
first off: it's called exponential decay,
second: "oh no shit"?
>assuming this is math homework
if it's math homework it can be radioactive decay all it wants, you still have to state what kind of decay you're expecting mathematically; radioactivity is not a mathematical concept so no assumption can be made.

>> No.2028055

>>2028034
not always does it use ln... google zeroth / second / third order decays and you'll see some interesting maths that do not involve ln's

But thats probably more advanced then OP requires... good solution above EK

>> No.2028077
File: 16 KB, 654x275, help2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028077

>>2028044
first of all, its spelt 'ganja'
secondly, my pic here is the universal formula for solving this type of question. do you see anything about [e]? do you see anything about a fucking 'half-life' or whatever you call it?
no! because like i said, you use [ln] for this, so fuck off you fucking troll, i am still correct.

>> No.2028095

>>2028077
no you're not. lrn2math and gtfo back to high school

>> No.2028104

>>2028095
not what? correct?
erm, yeh i fucking am!
see this:
>>2027928
>>2027955
2 people got the same answer as me..after i did it. so unless you think all 3 of us made the same mistake, i am correct, also, you see the pic in my last post? if you think it is so incorrect, how about we change the question, input some different numbers...maybe we find out how many days it will take till there is 10 mg of radioactive substance left... if you doubt my universal formula, feel free to put it to the test (and note the lack of "half life" and [e] in the universal formula)
...i think you will find i am correct, but feel free to test it.

>> No.2028128
File: 12 KB, 633x349, 1282852882578.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028128

>>2028104
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
There ya go.

>> No.2028139

>>2028128
so its not 250.39

>> No.2028143

>>2028128
...its not exactly relevant though, is it?
and my universal formula still stands...
and you still havent explained what the hell [e] has to do with anything.
and i already know how radiactive decay works, how do you think i got the right answer?

>> No.2028148

>>2028139
no 250.39 is correct, just ignore that fucking troll, he's probably a fucking geek who plays half life all day and then trolls /sci/ all night. just ignore him.

>> No.2028168

>>2028077
Are you trolling me, or are you really this stupid? Do you really not know what a half-life is? Are you really going to try to tell me that the formula here >>2028019 is incorrect? Considering it gave the same fucking answer that you gave?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life

>> No.2028182

>>2028143
>doesn't know what e has to do with ln
>this is why we have a kitchen rule

>> No.2028184

>>2028104
>do you see anything about [e]? do you see anything >about a fucking 'half-life' or whatever you call it?
>no! because like i said, you use [ln] for this, so fuck off >you fucking troll

you're not correct in assuming that the people talking about half life aren't. it's in fact a more sophisticated way of looking radio active decay since it's usually the number one question..."what's the half life"?

>> No.2028200
File: 4 KB, 260x292, autumnwut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028200

>>2028168
what does that formula even mean!?? it might EVENTUALLY get you to a right answer, but its just needlessly complicated, when i can just plug values into my universal formula that i posted before. i mean you havent even explained what the symbols mean, teh fuck is [N0] etc.
oh, and great, you have reposted the wiki link to half life, that is really fucking helpful, now that you have repeated yourself the penny has fucking dropped! asshat!
>>2028182
yes i fucking do know what [e] is, it just isn't relevant here. see >>2027964
>[e] is the opposite of [ln]
oh? the kitchen rule, isit? so i am correct, and yet you think that you can just bring up the fact that i am a woman and apparently that automatically makes you win?
...prick!

>> No.2028209

>>2028184
hmm...well i read the half life wiki seeing as some prick is spamming this thread with teh fucking link to it over and over again, i thought i may as well give it a glance..., and apart from a shitload of tl;dr it basically just means that in my universal formula, you are plugging in for the weight that you know, as being half the initial weight. which, yeah, great. it gives you the correct time, and this is apparently the 'half-life' but my formula is more useful than this as it can work with any weight, not just half the weight, so you CAN find the half life if you like, but it works with all other weights as well

>> No.2028211

delta time=30
delta amount=34/50=0.68
0.68^(1/30)=0.987...

50*0.987^t=2
0.987^t=1/25
(0.987)Log (1/25)=250.39

>> No.2028228

>>2028211
yeh, that uses my formula...just slightky slower and more step by step (and if that fucking retard troll is still lurking, notice the lack of [e])
>t=1/25
wut?
oh i see, its 2 / 50, like in my formula, you just cancelled a fraction to confuse me ;)
...hmm
yes, that should work, but us [ln] instead of log.

>> No.2028246

>>2028200
I was on your side until you thought your formula could solve all these kinds of problems:

Assuming the half life of a reaction is 73 hours, how much starting material remains after 89 hours if at 24 hours you measured 50 grams remained?
Your formula cannot solve this problem. The universal ones given in the wiki, and in chemistry texts can... OP posted a half life problem... sure your equation works for this (and 99.9%) of examples (heck I've jotted it down incase I come across something similar) but don\t berate others who are trying to broaden you're horizons and probably helping OP more then you did by just giving the answer...

TL;DR Don't be such a bitch EK even though your formula worked... also are you a woman?

>> No.2028248
File: 50 KB, 826x282, sshot-75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028248

>>2028200
It's the fucking formula for exponential decay. Pic related. It's in the exact same form OP tried to use, except he erred in using a variable for the exponential base, instead of a constant. If you're measuring the decay in half-life, you use 1/2 as the exponential constant. If you're measuring it using the mean lifetime or the decay constant, you use e as the exponential constant.

I'm not the one who initially posted the link to to half-life. However, it has been posted twice, and you still say you don't understand the formula that was taken right from that page.

>> No.2028251

The problem with EK is that he gets mad when people do things differently then him(i.e. his second post in this topic)thus making any validity to him totally non-existent. His second post is so ridiculous though, it brings to question if he's but a troll. Either way, he should go to bed.

>> No.2028255

>>2028228
I love how you refuse to admit how your equation was probably just derived from the one that has [e].

Also, ln is called the natural log for a reason.

>> No.2028263

>>2028246
erm...well i kinda have to reverse engineer my formula, and then use it again, but it will still work... hmm... i will try and refine my formula and see if it still works for your example
>but don\t berate others who are trying to broaden you're horizons and probably helping OP more then you did by just giving the answer...
yeh but he was trolling, berating him is fine.
also, initially i did just give the answer
>>2027885
but then immediately after, i posted the working, so it was helpful to OP...or it should have been.
>Don't be such a bitch EK
heeeeeeey! wtf? i wasn't being a bitch, that cunt was spamming the thread and talking bullshit, just because i don't put up with it doesn't make me a bitch, and i DID help P out, would a bitch do that?
>also are you a woman?
yes.

>> No.2028266
File: 47 KB, 469x428, trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028266

>mfw I bring up the fact that EK is saying "weight" when she means mass

>> No.2028269

I've never seen you this dense, EK. Your formula is fine, but you don't seem to understand why it works, or you would see that it's based on the exponential decay formula.

>> No.2028272

>>2028266
FUCKING LOL'd

But >>2028263 pics?

>> No.2028275

>>2028263
you're nothing but a fool if you think he's trolling. If anyone here is possibly trolling, it'd be you due to the fact of your blatant disregard to horizons that can be transcended.

>> No.2028285
File: 92 KB, 370x300, 1286061135183.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028285

>>2028263
>i wasn't being a bitch, that cunt was spamming the thread and talking bullshit, just because i don't put up with it doesn't make me a bitch, and i DID help P out, would a bitch do that?
Oh right, I forgot that tripfags are perpetually butthurt attention-whores.

>> No.2028289

>>2028263
>yeh but he was trolling, berating him is fine.
WAT? You're the one trolling me. We both posted the SAME FUCKING ANSWER, you you called me an idiot and said I was doing it wrong, when I'm fucking applying the standard exponential decay formula. Who's the troll?

>> No.2028290

>>2028251
>he
>him
>his
>him
>he's
>he

... i am female.

>His second post is so ridiculous though
my first post is the answer (close estimate, due to rounding in the working) my second post was my working, and an accurate answer. how is it ridiculous? it is the correct answer, with correct working, that is easy to follow and replicate.

>> No.2028292

>>2028285
Right? This is an ANONYMOUS message board for christ sake.

>> No.2028294

If anyone can rearrange the exponential decay formula into the one that EK is using, I would be happy to see it.

>> No.2028296

>>2028266
pff...semantics. you know what i mean... INB4 "herp derp it wouldn't be the same if we moved to the moon halfway through the radioactive decay because weight changes deeerppp!"
fine, mass then.
...and yes, i will edit the info-pic i made to incorporate this correction. thankyou trollface.

>> No.2028301

>>2028269
nah, this is how i did it when we had these kinds of problems in physics. i'm not dense, i always got the right answer...you basically just use [ln], and make sure you plug the numbers in in the correct order.

>> No.2028303
File: 9 KB, 200x179, 20091125094353!1259141754733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028303

>>2028290
>female
>internet
doubt it

>> No.2028307

>>2028290
My post of constantly calling you a male was due to the of possibly not hurting your feelings if you were in fact a male(had the feeling you were a female).

Alright, anywho... no where in my post did I say your answer was wrong. As for your second post, you only bitched about a guy giving a more accurate answer.

>> No.2028309

>pff...semantics. you know what i mean

Yeah, I know what you mean but in physics mass and weight are related but two very distinct, different properties; it's more than just semantics.

>> No.2028315

>>2028307
You're not even aware of why he called you dense. You're dense.

>> No.2028319

>>2028275
he was trolling
>If anyone here is possibly trolling, it'd be you due to the fact of your blatant disregard to horizons that can be transcended.
... i have no idea what you are on about. what horizons?
>>2028285
not butthurt, just making explanations. and i'm not attention whoring, i was just helping out OP who came here with honest intentions and sincerly wanted help with a question...which i lovingly provided.

>> No.2028344

>>2028303
...clearly you have never been to either youtube or facebook...
>no where in my post did I say your answer was wrong
so if i am correct, then what are you all complaining about?
>you only bitched about a guy giving a more accurate answer.
well i rounded to 2DP, i could be more accurate...but it isn't really necessary. also, when the hell did i bitch about a more accurate answer? ...citation needed.
>>2028309
got it, i'll try to use the terms properly next time :)
>>2028315
...coz he's a dickhead and so are you?

>> No.2028355

>>2028319
case and point, like the other two has said, you scream dense. And yes, you are attention whoring - this is an anonymous message board. What is the op going to benefit from you having a trip? Nothing.

>> No.2028360
File: 2 KB, 103x246, CodeCogsEqn.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028360

>>2028294
pic related

>> No.2028365
File: 18 KB, 439x311, nupple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028365

>THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM
>von missage

>> No.2028367

I like it how the problem has already been solved and everyone's arguing over e vs. ln when the answer's so obvious.

>> No.2028368

>>2028294
i doubt you can do it... if you start with a formula and are using [e]... you arn't going to be able to get rid of it... you have to do the same to both sides.
besides, if it were possible, mine would be the formula to use, as it is simpler, and easier to plug numbers into, as you don't even have to do any rearanging of the equation...
just plug numbers in,
get correct answer
???????
PROFIT!

>> No.2028379

>>2028368
I did it, I'm just slow typing it in. It'll be up momentarily.

>> No.2028385

>>2028344
Complaining? Don't flatter youself. Everyone is merely laughing at you. By your logic, we shouldn't complain about Hitler because he said some things which were correct.

>> No.2028392

EK is obviously trolling. Even dumb blonds are this dumb.

>> No.2028400

>>2028392
*aren't

I do agree though. No one is that stupid.

I'm only reading, and laughing. The word troll oozes from her fingers as she types.

>> No.2028402

>like the other two has said, you scream dense.
lol, how ironic...
i already explained before, in a previous thread, the value of having a trip (well... a name...but then i was being impersonated, so i decided to trip as well... same arguments still aply, + security)
it isn't attention whoring, it has purpose >>2028360
close...but where are you dividing at the end by the time which you know the mass for?

>> No.2028406

>>2028368
My God, I hope she's trolling. Are people really this dumb?

>> No.2028415

>>2028402
Because that's what you have in your formula.

>> No.2028421

>>2028406
apparently /sci/ is not necessarily where only smart people come

>> No.2028423

The only true plus on this site to being an attention whore is to help help not create confusion on who is saying what. This thread is a clear example, as EK is the one being the idiot.

>> No.2028427
File: 35 KB, 1024x767, Proof.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028427

>>2028368
If you try arguing this, you confirm yourself a troll.

>> No.2028434

>>2028385
laughing me for have a demonstrably correct method? yeh...that really is the top notch of humour in this day and age...
>>2028392
... you probably mean *arn't
..also, i fucking hate it when people are like " I could care less" and i'm like..."couldn't! you mean fucking 'couldn't!' god damn it!" ...just as a side point ;)
>>2028400
ah, he already made the correction, i hadn't read this yet... i can't be arsed deleted what i already wrote...
>No one is that stupid.
oh really? ok, you link me to my post which made a 'stupid' comment, quote me, and then explain why it is stupid. if you can't do that, then fuck off, I am correct.

>> No.2028435
File: 2 KB, 155x246, CodeCogsEqn.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028435

Oops, I just convenient dropped the decay rate, didn't I. Corrected.

>> No.2028449

>>2028427
yay! thats my formula!
...you got that from rearanging the wiki one?
nice!
well fine, that confirms it, both are just rearangements of each other, use whichever one you prefer...and i am still correct :D

>> No.2028464

>>2028434
>oh really? ok, you link me to my post which made a 'stupid' comment, quote me, and then explain why it is stupid. if you can't do that, then fuck off, I am correct.

okay...

>i doubt you can do it... if you start with a formula and are using [e]... you arn't going to be able to get rid of it...

I have no words...

>>2027964
>lol you idiot, you are doing it backwards, [e] is the opposite of [ln], you need to use [ln] to get the right answer, look at my pic from earlier.

You're saying I have to use your formula to get the right answer, calling me an idiot, quoting where I gave THE SAME FUCKING ANSWER as you, by applying the STANDARD FORMULA of exponential decay.

>> No.2028475

lol, thanks anon, that fucking owns all the retards who were like "hurr durr EK is so stupid and is trolling because she didn't use the wiki formula so she MUST be wrong...omigod she is soooo stupid, even moar stoopid than blondes hurr -e-dURRR!"
and then it turns out it was the same as mine. :)
suck it, pricks!

>> No.2028477

>>2028427
You do realize that R is not the half-life, right?

>> No.2028487

>>2028427
Lets just all agree that this shows the value of calculating the half life... it gets the same answer EK did just in a conseptually more relevant way... much better to see this and know where the numbers come from / what they mean then EK's plug and play approach...

This makes me think EK is just a bit of a troll:
>if you start with a formula and are using [e]... you arn't going to be able to get rid of it... you have to do the same to both sides

Not if you do the inverse operation to each side (ln) so that gets rid of the e... just saying that I think she has taken many of you for a ride on the troll express.

>> No.2028489

>>2028475
Um... I'm the one who posted the derivation here... >>2028435
and I'm also the one who is saying you are fucking dumbest blond on the planet.

>> No.2028492

>>2028477
I couldn't find the right "symbol," so i just used a variable.

>> No.2028506

>>2028487
I don't think she is trolling. I think she is literally to dumb to have seen for herself that her formula was derived from the exponential decay function, and was literally surprised to see that it could be derived from it.

>> No.2028517

>>2028489
wat?...but you just proved me correct....
erm, well w/e i guess....
also, not a natural blonde ;)

>> No.2028526

>>2028475
I was calling you an idiot because your horizons were so limited. Stop assuming such nonsense.

>> No.2028536

>>2028517
Pics Now!!!

>> No.2028556

>>2028506
... i DID know this was exponential decay, i never tried to hide that fact, i wasn't trolling or playing ignorant about this...it was even stated in the fucking OP. i didn't get the CORRECT answer using the CORRECT formula by chance.. i HAVE done this before and i do know what i am doing. this doesn't make me a troll, anon just proved that my formula is a rearangement and is correct. so all i have done is been correct and told the truth, and yet somehow you guys seem rather peturbed, confused or angry...
also, possibly 1 slight mistake....seeing as [e] and [ln] are inverses of each other, you can get rid of them from equations, but only in place of the otehr one, so if i [ln] both sides to get rid of [e] terms, i will be left with some things in terms of [ln] but this is fine...and its in fact the reason my answer contains [ln]
if you use my formula and replace all the [ln's] with [e]'s you will get the wrong answer, it has to be [ln] that is used ,and not [e]
so i was incorrect about it not being able to be rearanged...but i was totally right about everything else.
any other problems?

>> No.2028558

>>2028492
No, I mean it's not the value of the half-life; it's the decay constant. The decay constant (r here) satisfies
<span class="math">N_t = N_0 e^{-rt}[/spoiler]
whereas the half-life (h here) satisfies
<span class="math">N_t = N_0 .5^{-ht}[/spoiler]
different bases.

>> No.2028566

>>2028526
i'm not an idiot, and i don't limit my horizons to anything, i am always happy to learn new things, in fact i enjoy it.

>> No.2028573

EK is saying we're "mad" because she's right, when we're just loling at her acting like a douche. Or maybe I should say bitch...

>> No.2028576

wow is the whole argument still going? You never get tired /sci/ do you

>> No.2028577

>>2028536
oh yeh?
why don't YOU post pics, then?

>> No.2028586

>>2028556
Yes, one thing more... don't call people idiots when they have just produced the correct answer, just because you don't understand their formula.

>> No.2028587

>>2028577
Fine then, but I asked you first... I just wondering if you hawt or naught.

>> No.2028588

>>2028566
>the fuck has half life got to do with this? you just use 'ln' and shit, yeh?
anyway, you got the same answer as me so STFU...
fucking crowbarring headcrabs has little to do with physics.

yeah you sure don't limit your horizons and enjoy learning new things....

>> No.2028599

>>2028588
>the fuck has half life got to do with this? you just >use 'ln' and shit, yeh?
>anyway, you got the same answer as me so >STFU...
>fucking crowbarring headcrabs has little to do >with physics.

fixed

>> No.2028612

>>2028558
sorry, make that second equation
<span class="math">N_t = N_0 .5^{-t/h}[/spoiler]
which is why it is the amount of time for half the substance to decay.

>> No.2028615

>>2028573
yeh but i AM right...
>when we're just loling at her acting like a douche. Or maybe I should say bitch...
douche?
even if i was incorrect or wrong (which i wasn't...on the whole) the right thing to do would be to calmly and politely explain why i am wrong, so i can learn from you and do things correctly in the future. you should not 'lol' at me, for being wrong or appearing stupid (which, as i say, i havent been anyway)
do you really find it funny when people are wrong? do you think it somehow magically makes you anymore right? because it doesn't.
>Or maybe I should say bitch
>>2028263
>and i DID help OP out, would a bitch do that?

>> No.2028619

>>2028587
She used to spam her mug all over /sci/. Please don't encourage her.

>> No.2028635

>>2028586
>Yes, one thing more... don't call people idiots when they have just produced the correct answer, just because you don't understand their formula.
...then the same pretty much applies to everybody else on this thread regarding MY formula...

>> No.2028636

>>2028615
It's been explained why there are correct answers, and better answers.

And yes, at this point, you've become funny to us.

I feel this is an appropriate time to say, "I guess you can't save them all."

>> No.2028644

>>2028635
Implying we don't understand your formula?

>> No.2028664

>>2028636
better answers? better than the correct answer?
...well, rounding to more decimal places i guess...its not like it makes a difference.
>And yes, at this point, you've become funny to us.
lol, speak for yourself... i was thinking like "show of hands, who is amused by this?" but seeing as everyone is anon and possible samefag, its rather redundant... anyway, your sense of humour is clearly shit.
>I feel this is an appropriate time to say, "I guess you can't save them all."
... i don't get it, but my guess is its some sort of reference from the game 'half life'
>>2028644
well whats with all the rage then?

>> No.2028698

>>2028664
besides the more precise answer, I was referring to how you CAN look at it from other perspectives.

I'm not speaking for myself. Everyone else in this thread is kind of in awe of what you've portrayed.

The quote, hm.. take for example, a girl is listening to Boards of Canada. Her friends come over, and hear the music, and say this isn't music. They say it sucks, and don't like it because it's different than what they listen to. The girl listening to it thinks to herself, "Well you can't save them all."

The quote entails that sometimes you just can't shed light on EVERYONE. The story was a bad example though, considering music taste is entirely subjective. I've had a tough time lately though, finding objective qualities in life.

>> No.2028714

>>2028698
yeh i think everyone else has already left the thread in terror due to the sweomeness of how correct i am ;)
nah, but seriously, i have read up on half life etc just now..quite interesting stuff... i mean most i kinda half knew before...and sort of assumed...so it comes naturally, because it ties in with radioactive decay etc...which i read up on a bit before.

>> No.2028731

>>2028714
*awesomeness

...s and a are next to each other on the keyboard etc...

>> No.2028744

>>2028714
I'd be careful with the false assumptions you oddly keep running with. It's only 2:25 pm for me, if I wasn't sick, I would of luckily not seen this thread and been serving people crepes.

>> No.2028748

>>2028731
It's okay, I figured as so anyway. with easy mistakes like that, I don't even sweat correcting it on a site like this.

>> No.2028765

>>2028635
>...then the same pretty much applies to everybody else on this thread regarding MY formula...
FFS, THIS IS WHY WE ARE CALLING YOU DENSE. NO ONE ITT EVER SAID YOUR FORMULA WAS WRONG. NO ONE.

>> No.2028770

>>2028765
Yeup. Agreed.

>> No.2028774
File: 3 KB, 126x126, crnr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028774

>>2028765
>>2028770

heheheh...

>> No.2028786

>>2028774
Falsely assuming again, instead of responding with an adequate rebuttle and/or acceptance of the truth.

>> No.2028796

>>2028774
Noted for future reference. EK is just a troll.

>> No.2028806
File: 133 KB, 555x799, 1286129846916.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028806

>>2028774
I wish I could post two pics, this and one with a facepalm...

>> No.2028814
File: 4 KB, 82x157, adder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028814

>>2028765
>>2028786
yeh, my formula has been proved right.... strangely enough by someone who was on the other side of the argument...actually i think i lost track of what i was arguing for...
lol, this all stemmed from the butthurt caused by this
>>2027964
heheheh...

>> No.2028815

>>2028796
That or an idiot that found out about 4chan.

>> No.2028822

>>2027944
It actually rooted back to the third post in this topic, in which YOU got butthurt.
>>2028814

>> No.2028835

>>2028822
oh wait, no THAT was a troll... hehehehe

>> No.2028846

This is the worst thread I've ever been involved in. I'm leaving now.

>> No.2028857

>>2028835
tripwhore validating she lost

>> No.2028863

>>2028857
/thread

>> No.2028868

>>2028846
lol'd
>>2028857
>fucking crowbarring headcrabs
lol i would have though this one would have been kinda obvious...

>> No.2028881

>>2028857
lol, what did i lose? i gave a correct answer with a correct formula, some friendly anon rearanged it and showed it to be the same as a different formula, and then i learnt some physics from wiki.

seems rather more win than lose, wouldn't you agree?

>> No.2028895

>>2028857
LOL

/thread

>> No.2028928

>>2028857
I just read the whole thread, and you think what you just wrote happened. I almost spit out my coffee.

>> No.2028937

>>2028928
/thread +2

>> No.2028996
File: 96 KB, 808x609, IntelligentBlackPeople.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2028996

EK, if you won't listen to anon, maybe you'll listen to another tripfag...

these guys believe you to be a douche because there are multiple ways to go about this problem and get the correct answer, yet you insisted in the beginning that your way was the only correct way, denouncing the first person to come along with another answer (albeit the same answer) because they didn't do it the same way that you did. this seemed kind of narrow minded of you, but I'm glad you eventually realized that there are many different paths to get to the same destination. just try not to fly off the handle the next time someone appears to contradict you.

>> No.2029029

>>2028996
This has been stated already. She isn't going to understand. Everyone gave up on enlightening her.

>> No.2029072

>>2028996
>just try not to fly off the handle the next time someone appears to contradict you.
acting.

>> No.2029087
File: 73 KB, 755x1255, lol_i_troll_u_851.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2029087

>>2028774
>>2028814
>>2028835
>>2028868
>>2029072

>> No.2029101
File: 31 KB, 349x642, 1289181109427.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2029101

>>2028774
>>2028774

>> No.2029106

>>2029101
i fucking new someone was about to post this!
i'm psycic lol

>> No.2029110

>>2029072
stop being bitchy that you lost

this has been correctly "/thread'd" already anyway

>> No.2029120

>>2029106
Sorry, not psychic. it's been stated plenty already, you've only been stupid. I think there's a thread dedicated to you anyway. Go fail over there instead.

>> No.2029135

>>2029110
i'm OP, thread dies when i let it die, bitch.
>>2029120
yeh, ive seen it. feedin my ego a bit dontcha think? all of the sudden making a whole nother thread about me irregardless of what has happened here...

>> No.2029141

>>2029135
>I'm mad that I lost yadda yadda yadda

>> No.2029582

>>2028857
/thread

>> No.2029623

EK, I seriously doubt that the OP's homework warrants the usage of [ln], [e], logs, etc. It seems like a pretty basic chemistry question, not that I can be arsed to bother to answer it.

>> No.2029650

>>2028863
>>2028895
>>2028937
>>2029582

lol...shows how much fucking use typing /thread is...

>>2029623
meh, might be other ways of doing it.

>> No.2029691

>>2029650
i know sci has many high school morons in here, but is anyone taking this kid seriously? im sure he feels superior solving exponential decay questions (learned anywhere from age 13-15 max), but hopefully everyone knows basic math if they are posting on a board specifically for science and math discussion. if he didn't know what a half life was, its the same principle, unless he's never taken a chem/bio/physics/math class and wasting his time or he's boosting his 12 year old ego before bedtime. with that said, aren't there more exciting places implement your keen sense of middle school humor?

>> No.2029701

>>2029691
MtF transsexuals prefer "she"

>> No.2029712

>>2029650
>>2029701
/thread>>2029650

>> No.2029760

>>2029135
I'ma do it. I'm crazy. I'm going to point it out!
>irregardless

>> No.2029769

>>2029760
1/3, look harder

also 'hurr durr i trollulolololol' etc...

>> No.2029774

>>2029769
also, that isn't like the 0/10 rating for a troll...by 1/3 i mean you have spotted 1 error, but missed 2 more in the same post.

>> No.2029781

>>2029769
0/1.01, cover troll to cover up srsness harder

>> No.2029788

>>2029781
..wat?