/sci/ - Science & Math

apart from the pussy, there's constantly new innovation and textbook physics and mathematical problems that arise on a day-to-day basis, especially in the private sector. also a BS in EE is guaranteed 300k starting
seriously though, depends on what area in EE

>>5487190
done goofed, i mean f(x,y)

f(Y) = infintity for Y=0
= 0 everywhere else

f(y) = infinity (on circle about origin of radius Y)
f(y) = zero (everywhere else)

> f(n) = f(n+1)
>inb4

>>4825372
take that fucking shit back to /b/

The region you're looking for is the solution for the differential equation y = f(x), but the region you're looking for is the domain of a z = y - f(x).

in other words the region is not the box, but its a curved 4th order polynomial. apply the theorem to this shape, and see what happens

7/10

well how good of an approximation of m and n do you need? take a taylor expansion and hopefully you can solve for the parameters?

>>4715231
nvm didnt see the n in the coefficient

>>4715313
line's slope*

why don't you plot c/co against time where the c/co is plotted on a logarithmic plot (of base e) and then you can find the ratio between m and n by calculating the line of the slope

the drops of water are falling from the sky that is "up", something that is defined to be farther away from the source of the gravitational pull, and thus has higher gravitational potential. the water falls "down" due to the gravity and since water molecules, have electrons and a nucleus and all the pleasant things inside of it, it has mass, which is a sense of inertia under the gravitational field. the water seems to be falling sideways because the motion of the car causes the exertion of force in the opposite direction as that of the motion of the car. this force pushes water in its direction.


physics: gravity, basic mechanics

here you go op, i tried

fuck op and his bullshit, but just curious, you can do this using lagrange multipliers too right?

>>4617401
thanks i just found the rest of that article too. makes sense

>>4617373
anything particular about their vibrational frequencies?

is it simply the frequency of its vibration? the optical being in the optical range, and the acoustic being in the low frequency regime?

what's the difference between optical and acoustic phonons

4/3 pi * r^3 = volume

so r^3 = volume *3/(4pi)

r = cuberoot(volume *3/(4pi))

this is your answer in centimeters. now multiply by 2.54 to get the answer in inches.

looks like the radius is about about 2.5 feet. so you're looking at 5 feet

>>4616512
the matrix should have four vectors v1 v2 v3 and u. and you should augment the [0 0 0 0] vector. so its going to look like [v1 v2 v3 u | 0]

>>4616403
if you used all four vectors, and you got a row of 0's, then you basically have a linearly dependent set. that means the vector is already in the "cube" spanned by the first three vectors.

>>4616381
i don't exactly know what the dot product form is. but if the goal is to find the orthogonal set, you can manually compute the orthogonal vectors by projection, but the gram schmidt is exactly that, and i don't know how else you could get an orthogonal basis

Procedure:
1. To show the fourth vector is in not in the hyperplane, take the four vectors and make a matrix. set this matrix equal to the 0 vector in R4, which means the vector [0 0 0 0 ]^T. So now you have Ax=b, A is the matrix out of the four vectors, b is the 0 vector. If the fourth vector is not in H, the only x that you will get that will solve the matrix is when x=0.

2. The same as before, but this time x can be some vector that is not 0 in order to solve Ax=b.

3. I think this part is basically to find the orthogonal set? Use Gram-schmidt and find the vectors. if you don't know what that is, just ask.