But what if you had a moving vector field? For instance, let's say you had the centre of some galaxy, about which all the stars around it were orbiting, moving through space. Obviously in the reference frame that is that moving galaxy, the velocity of that centre is zero. But in some external reference frame not moving parallel to that galaxy, that centre is not zero. Does there have to be some *other* point in that galaxy, then, at which the velocity is zero in the other reference frame, or is there some means by which literally no point in that galaxy has a zero point?

Not sure whether this is better suited to the math or physics board; thought I'd put it here since I assume chemistry and geology have used for the math of rotational dynamics as well.

]]>He talks about R as relating a term to its successive term in a sequence - using the sum of first "n" odd numbers equaling n^2 as an example.

I'm not sure how he defines "R" to start with in this example.

Then introduces R^{xn}, which relates a sequence of numbers together??

I'm not sure if I'm reading his notation correctly.

Any input on this passage would be helpful.

There is link to the book below.

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/russell-anal-matter.pdf

]]>

Thank you in advance to those who will respond

]]>

(Did the math on that it works to make a perfect circle)

2. a 45 degree angle or C can be found by starting at the top corner of quadrant 4 and bottom corner of quadrant 2 and having C be crossing (0,0), so a and b are doubled. Then you can get the other diagonal through 3 and 1 quadrants using the same formula for a curve, now you have 3 dimensions and 2 angled slices of a sphere that cross at 4 points

3. We need them to cross at 8 points because we want to put 8 more spheres around the first one, we want 8 more spheres because of the fact that the dividend between the formula for the volume of sphere over the same formula only with r halved will always yield 8 meaning 8 spheres can surround one sphere in twice the volume without any of the radii crossing but only a maximum of 8

4. So you need 4 more diagonals at 4 45/2 degree angles between the two 45 degree diagonals, these 6 3D slices of the sphere that are angled will intersect at 8 points: these points can be changed by changing the viewing angle of the whole sphere longitudinally using (x-x/2, y) for quandrant 1. These points can be calculated where two slices have the same value using the lateral transformations (x-x/n, y+y/n) for quadrant 1.

5. These 8 new spheres are either closer to you than the original or further away, depth, we express this using y2=y1-y1/r over x2=x1-x1/r where r=C/2 all for quadrant 1.

The instructions I gave for the coordinates of those spheres don't become connected to "various physical phenomena and equations" until gravitons are introduced. Which were tricky to put in there, because they are created by the collapse of the spheres into each other and therefore produce a net drag on them and each other much like particles. A system like the universe can naturally comes into form.

Actually doing the math for gravitons in that way however was tricky. When we said that the x and y parameters of an outside sphere was x2=x1-x1/r (for the spheres touching the inner one at it's back half as opposed to it's front half) where r=C(pythagorean for quadrant 1 of the first sphere)/2 we were saying the radii of the outer sphere and inner sphere were touching. Keep in mind we are always starting at the centeral sphere which is why when we put spheres around a single outer layer of 9 we only need the two diagonal discs to create for points where there are 32 more spheres in front and 32 more in back relative to the original central sphere we started with.

When we take the form y2=y1-2y1/r we are placing the center of an outer sphere at the radial surface of the inner sphere. When this happens one of the discs of an outer sphere & one in the inner sphere are the same x & y values at 2 points (found using lateral transformations), top & bottom.

Saying top is x2, y2 and bottom is x1,y1 if where stacking in the quadrant 1 direction the center for your graviton is found with (y2+y1)/2 and (x2+x1)/2 and the length of your x and y coordinates in it's first quadrant is also found by finding the average of the height and width of quad 1 for the two spheres that are crossing through one another.

]]>

]]>

Thanks in advance.

]]>

Is a Fourier transform of a real function is still always real? I suppose the idea is that the imaginary component decays to 0 as you take the integral from -infinity to infinity so that it evaluates to a single finite real number, or actually, does the output of a the Fourier transform of a real valued function need to be real? Why do I generally see absolute value arguments in proving well-defined properties if complex functions have even more possible they can take? If you take an absolute value that only tells you anything about the magnitude of uncountably infinite numbers.

]]>
If Obj1 have weight X_{1}=0.7 from Method1 and weight Y_{1}=0.5 from Method2

similarly, Obj2 have weight X_{2}=0.5 from Method 1 and weight Y_{2}=0.7 from method2

My objective is to Rank the obj1 and Obj2 according to there weight values determined from Method1 and Method2.

Can anyone help me to tell the defined mathematical formula to get the,

Rank of Obj1 = ?

Rank of Obj2= ?

]]>]]>

\[ f''(x) = \frac{f(x+2dx) -2(f+dx) + f(x)}{(dx)^2} \]

I am using a finite difference approximation called "Second order forward" from the link, I use dx instead of h:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference#Higher-order_differences

]]>what context/s this equation might be relevant, particularly the contents of the brackets.

I am aware it is a strange request, related to puzzle solving,

but perhaps someone can help guide me in an interesting direction.

]]>

`frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\cos{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}}(1-\sin{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}})\sqrt{1-\sin{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}}}} = \frac{1}{[1+\cos{(\phi-\phi_0)}]^2}.`

\begin{equation}

`\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\cos{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}}(1-\sin{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}})\sqrt{1-\sin{\frac{\phi-\phi_0}{2}}}} = \frac{1}{[1+\cos{(\phi-\phi_0)}]^2}.`

\end{equation}

I have checked the two functions by numerical calculation to a graph and see that two functions give exactly the same shape with the $\phi\leq \pi$ as shown in the figure.

\begin{figure}[!t]

`\centering`

\includegraphics[scale=1]{Nonuniform-ka20-E.eps}

\caption{Comparison between two functions}

\end{figure}

]]>

I am trying to read a research paper: PrivateJobMatch: A Privacy-Oriented Deferred Multi-Match Recommender System for Stable Employment :

https://faculty.ucmerced.edu/frusu/Papers/Conference/2019-recsys-private-job-match.pdf

QuoteIn this paper, we introduce PrivateJobMatch

(Figure 2) – a privacy-oriented deferred multi-match recommender

system – which generates stable pairings (candidate, job description),

rather than recommendations that are best-fit for individual

candidates/employers. PrivateJobMatch combines the flexibility of

decentralized markets with the wise pairing of centralized matching

by adapting DAA into a recommender system that generates a

ranked list of candidates for employers – and vice-versa – in the

order of expected match quality.

On one hand it says:

Quotewhich generates stable pairings (candidate, job description), rather than recommendations

And on the other hand it says:

Quotewith the wise pairing of centralized matching by adapting DAA into a recommender system

I feel the above two views are conflicting because on one side it says that PrivateJobMatch does not generate recommendations and on the other hand, it says, it is adapting DAA into recommender system.

I can't understand how PrivateJobMatch utilizes the features of decntralized markets.

Somebody please guide me.

Zulfi.

]]>I am modelling the length of the growth season for 120 different years based on estimated daily temperature. The temperature is estimated from a periodic function: f(x)=D+A*sin(B(x+C), where the constants B and C are the same every year and A and D varies.

So I would like to know when the area under each function equals 1200 as shown in the figure. I think it can be solved by finding the upper limit b in equation 1 when the lower limit a is known. For the year 1990 it would look like equation 2, and b will take a value between a and 365. Do you know how I can calculate this using Excel?

Thanks in advance,

]]>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_line

Is it possible to find points corresponding to infinitesimals on a number line? I mean finding an infinitesimal between two neighbouring points (between two real numbers).

I am assuming that every point is surrounded by neighbourhood. I got this idea of neighbouring points from John L . Bells' book A Primer of Infinitesimal Analyis (2008).

On page 6, he mentions the concept of ‘infinitesimal neighbourhood of 0’. But I think he would not consider his infinitesimals as points because on page 3 he writes

that "Since an infinitesimal in the sense just described is a part of the continuum from which it has been extracted, it follows that it cannot be a point:

to emphasize this we shall call such infinitesimals nonpunctiform."

]]>

I was looking on the post about the reliability of published research.

And I was wondering if we could know, a posteriori, if a study is dependable or not.

Do you know any statistic test to improve our understanding of already published paper?

In biology I have seen a lot of people doing three or four different tests to see if their results are meaningful. Isn't it a kind of fraud?

Thank you very much. ]]>

I'm in a online debate with someone about some deep mathematical concepts. My opponent was trying to convince me that you can have a sequence of numbers for which there is a first element, a last element, but no second element and no second last element (where the sequence contains more than 2 elements). I thought that was absurd until he gave me an example: all the real numbers between 0 and 1.

It definitely has a first member (0) and it definitely has a last member (1), but after 0 there is no "next" real number. Likewise, there is no real number that comes just before 1. Yet there are obviously real numbers between 0 and 1.

That stumped me until I figured that couldn't possible count as a sequence because sequences must consist of well-define discrete elements and real numbers aren't well-defined or discrete. I thought that was a terrible way of putting it, so I looked up the definition of sequences online and the key word I found was "enumerable". The members of a sequence must be enumerable. And I don't believe the reals are enumerable.

But then he came up with this other example: take the sum \(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{9}{10^i}\). If you define each member of the sequence as the value of this sum for every value for n > 0 and order them by each incremental value of n, then you will have the sequence (0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...). And if you allow n = \(\infty\), then we know this sum equals 1. Therefore, 1 is the last value in the sequence. Therefore, the sequence starts with 0.9 and ends with 1. Furthermore, each member is well-defined and discrete. We know each member by the sum \(\sum_{n}{i^1}\frac{9}{10^i}\) and the value of n. Yet, it has no second last member.

Is this a legitimate example of a sequence?

]]>

For example:

\[ \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{sin(x) - x}{x^3} \]

this is usually solved by applying L'Hopital's rule 3 times and the answer is -1/6:

]]>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

here is my question : does the logistic sequence for some choosen irrational parameter reach every real number inside a real interval, or is it always just a subset ?

(I hope i'm in the right section)

thanks !

]]>I've been getting into the concept of hyperreal numbers lately, and I've got tons of questions. What I understand about the hyperreals is that they are numbers larger than any real number or smaller than any real number. I'm sure you can imagine how counterintuitive this sounds to someone like me who's new to the concept. It's like talking about numbers greater than infinity. I always thought that was impossible. So it shouldn't be surprising that someone like me would have a ton of questions. I'll start with a couple.

1) Assume that R is a hyperreal number greater than any real number. What does 2 x R equal? It's clear what 2 x n means where n is a real number because there is a 0 value for reference--i.e. 2 x n is a number twice the distance from 0 as n is from 0. But do the hyperreals have their own 0 point? How could they if they are greater than any real number (I realize some hyperreals are smaller than any real number, but for this question I'm only focused on the infinitely large hyperreals)? If 2 x R means twice the distance from 0 the real number as R is from 0 the real number, the you get a number another infinite distance away--sort of like a hyper-hyperreal number. <-- Does that make sense? Do the infinitely large hyperreals have their own infinity beyond which are numbers that are hyperreal even to the hyperreals?

2) I remember watching a vsauce episode on youtube where Michael Stevens explained the difference between cardinals and ordinals, which as I understand it is the difference between numbers that represent quantities and numbers that represent orders. He explained that while there is no cardinal number greater than infinity, you could talk about ordinal numbers greater than infinity. He didn't explicitly link ordinals to hyperreals but it seemed like the same idea. He stressed that since ordinals don't stand for quantities, you cannot use ordinals to speak of "how much" something is, but simply whether they come "before" or "after" another number. Is this true of hyperreals as well? If so, this would seem to imply that there is no 0 point on the hyperreal number line as that would mean you could quantify any hyperreal number R (the ones greater than infinity). It's quantity would just be how many whole hyperreal numbers it is away from "hyper-zero" (just as we say the number 5 represents the quantity of whole numbers it is away from 0). But if there is no such "hyper-zero" number, then there isn't a reference point relative to which we can say "how much" a hyperreal number (greater than infinity) represents (except that it's greater than any real number). We could still quantify the difference between any two (greater than infinity) hyperreal numbers. So we could say R+3 is 3 greater than R, but without knowing how much R really is, we don't really know how much R+3 is either. So I guess the question is: should hyperreal numbers greater than infinity be thought of as ordinals only--they represent orders of number, not quantities--or is there a way of talking about their quantities as well?

I'll stop there for now. Thanks for any forthcoming responses.

]]>

Let the p-th power of an arithmetic series as follows

[math]\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^p = x_1^p + x_2^p + x_3^p + \cdots + x_n^p[/math]

The general equation for the sum is given as follows

[math]\sum^{n}_{i=1} {x_i}^p=\sum^{u}_{m=0}\phi_m s^{2m}\frac{[\sum^{n}_{i=1} x_i] ^{p-2m}}{n^{p-(2m+1)}}[/math]

where: [math]p-(2m+1)\ge 1[/math] if p is even and [math]p-(2m+1)\le 1[/math] if p is odd, [math]\phi_m[/math] is a coefficient,[math]\sum^{n}_{i=1} {x_i}[/math] sum of n-th term, [math]u=\frac {p-1}{2}[/math] for odd p and [math]u=\frac {p}{2}[/math] for even p and s is the difference between terms (i.e [math]s=x_{i+1}-x_{i}[/math]).

Below are the equations for p=2-7

[math]\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_{i}^{2}=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_{i} \right ]^2}{n}+\frac{n(n^2-1)s^2}{12}\\\\\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i^3=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^3}{n^2}+\frac{(n^2-1)s^2\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n} x_i\right ]}{4}[/math]

The value s is the common difference of successive terms in arithmetic progression and [math]\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i[/math] is the sum of arithmetic terms. The beauty of this equation is that when you set n=2, it describes the Fermat's Last Theorem in a polynomial forms and if you set p to be negative, you can get new form of Riemmann's Zeta Function.

Here, you can see how the coefficients are repetitive:

[math]\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i^4=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^4}{n^3}+\frac{(n^2-1)s^2\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^2}{2n}+\frac{n(3n^2-7)(n^2-1)s^4}{240}\\\\\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i^5=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^5}{n^4}+\frac{5(n^2-1)s^2\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n} x_i\right ]^3}{6n^2}+\frac{(3n^2-7)(n^2-1)s^4\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]}{48}[/math]

[math]\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i^6=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^6}{n^5}+\frac{5(n^2-1)s^2\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^4}{4n^3}+\frac{(3n^2-7)(n^2-1)s^4\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^2}{16n}+\frac{n(3n^4-18n^2+31)

(n^2-1)s^6}{1344}\\\\\\\sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i^7=\frac{\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^7}{n^6}+\frac{7(n^2-1)s^2\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^5}{4n^4}+\frac{7(3n^2-7)(n^2-1)s^4\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]^3}{48n^2}+\frac{(3n^4-18n^2+31)

(n^2-1)s^6\left [ \sum_{i=0}^{n}x_i \right ]}{192}[/math]

Perhaps, by looking at this new formulation, someone could work out an alternative shorter proof for Fermat's Last Theorem.

]]>I realise that there can be multiple [sic] answers; I'm after the smallest integers that produce c.

eg. Given 1.05; A/B = 21/20.

]]>