ahmet

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

I thought you were referring to multiple reflections.(you said flat mirrors)

But for lenses and concave mirrors, you never physically have an object or image at an infinite distance. That’s a mathematical issue.

 

There is no physical realization. Nothing that can actually exist in the real world.

if I understand you correctly , you...

presumably want something that allow us to make any physical experiment or have a consciousness by our 5 sense organs. 

if so, or something like this. Then yes. assume please there are two flat mirrors each are in the opposing each other. (but think two cases) (to me,you could find the similar contexts in either examples  among the discussion) 

1) the mirrors are two circle mirrors and here our radius is infinity. 

2) in this second case. assume please the the mirror are in rectangular shape. 

then two subcases exists.

2a) assume please the angle between these two flat mirror is 180 degree. 

2b) assume please you are playing/changing with angle (only between -10,+10)

what will you see?

this is the tunnel and the frame. the inside of that rectangular frame is infinitive , but the count of frames are also infinitive.

you see the frames each.then it has been experimentally measured and mathematically can be formulated. 

for mathematical appearance and formulization

give a variation to the distance between each consecutive frame. (you see them)

and our function is dst(x) = {x, x= distance between each consecutive two frames}

then Kpl(t)= {t,t= count of domain set of dst(x) function}

.....

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

An example of a function that is 'continuous almost everywhere would be

{f(x):f(x)=1,x≠0,f(x)=0,x=0;x∈R}

Here the function is continuous for an infinity of points but discontinuous for one single point at the origin.

 

 

 

that functional expression is equivalent expression of 

f(x)= | sgn(x) | ,x is the element of R.

I understand.

Quote

 Note that we can handle infinity and use infinity in Mathematics, but infinity is not 'almost infinity' it is infinity.  

Quote

Quote

This is example is different from your optics one since your table says both that the image does not exist and the image is at infinity.
A better optical example would be a source (object) at infinity, which has meaning.

I was more trying to judge the claim that swansont had given. What does "physical" mean ? (for an expression) (what is the criterion?)

mmm,maybe I might change my idea.   

because I remember at one of my BSc class that one of my hodja was using something like this:

"continuous Almos at everywhere"

but again I am sure on one thing.

to make it in the conformity of mathematical sense, you need to formulate it.

and I do not remember the formula of that things he said (given above) 

8 hours ago, ahmet said:

 

to me,,"almost infinite" definitely does not make sense at this stage. 

but if we  were implying some contexts,for instance, in real analysis (some relevant subtitles would be : lebesgue integral, limits  specifically in this context, lebsgue space,etc.)then I m not sure.

mm yes presumably I am correct in this expression.

because when I asked to google what "continuous almost everywhere " means ,it returned me this quotation given below

Quote

A function f:X→Y is continuous almost everywhere if it is only discontinuous on a set of measure 0. ... There is an important distinction to make here: a function is continuous almost everywhere if it is continuous on a "large" subset. But it must be continuous on that subset.

this explanation includes one important keyword "measure" thus it is presumably relevant to real analsysi ("measure theory")

 

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, you will eventually run out of photons as there is absorption 

I am not sure what you meant here. 

but this  might prove that it was physical (or in other words,it might convince you). (I could not be sure whether it complies this forum's rules ,therefore I am uploading the picture instead)

hi,

[math] \frac x^{2}{1^2} - \frac y^{2}{\frac {1}{ \sqrt {92}^2} [/math]

and this is just hyperbola's equation.

therefore, it is one of quite simple curves   

Just now, swansont said:

Two mirrors is not infinite. Please don’t make me drag this out of you. Post your example, or step off

I do not imply the mirror ,but ..

the appearances you will obtain ,will have at inifitive count.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Don’t leave us in suspense 

well, 

assume please you use two flat mirror one is just at the opposing side another.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

 while acknowledging that using "infinite" is unphysical.

I think it is physical,too.

because I think I can examplify it..

On 6/10/2020 at 6:01 PM, King E said:

So can I say ''infinite pieces'' of vertical lines instead of ''almost infinite pieces''?

to me,,"almost infinite" definitely does not make sense at this stage. 

but if we  were implying some contexts,for instance, in real analysis (some relevant subtitles would be : lebesgue integral, limits  specifically in this context, lebsgue space,etc.)then I m not sure.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If ads are enabled, YouTube pays approximately $1 per each 1000 views. So 1 mln views = $1k.

Professional musicians typically earn money on concerts ✅  and selling CD/MP3.    🚫

(4000 hours per year, is quite a lot for newbie, it is almost half year of watching by single person, or 4h for each of subscribers)

 

concerts seems logical but not so much 🌙, and I do not think that todays musicians are able to ern money via selling cd/mp3 ..I also think that my 7 years old cousin almost will not learn what the cd is. It is odd  ☢️  

thanks for the information.

and are there any statistics taken from youku?

are there numeric expressions to clarify the case?

For instance if we assume that between 5000000-500000000 yearly watch target how much money will this bring as income?

On 5/25/2020 at 6:20 AM, ALine said:

 

Also apologies for the slight vagueness, have some linear algebra knowledge however I need to study up on it some more in order to give more concrete terms.

 

I think you can find some contexts in Schaum's Outlines / Linear Algebra. (book series)

if you would like to further improve yourself,then I can recommend Algebra for you under the same source series.

hello,

I believe I am a good composer and music producer , but unfortunately currently this consists of only a belief. 

but as you know,all we are trying to implement our plannings and or the things that we imagine.

Therefore,I am planning to fly to romania. as far as I know ,they are good in popular musics.

have you any recommendation for me? I shall try to remain open to ideas...

3 minutes ago, ALine said:

I think what I am trying to understand is if my interpretation is correct from a beginners perspective. Like if my step my step process is correct vs. if the overall thing is correct. Analogous to trying to initially understand a physics equation intuitively verses begin able to solve it. Thank you both however for the assistance.

I understand. physics and mathematics are different disciplines. 

as a matheatician,to me,if you would like to do mathematics ,then you need to concentrate on definitions and theorems.

19 hours ago, ALine said:

I am attempting to understanding implication in mathematical logic.

I will start off by giving an example of its use and my interpretation of how to correctly under it. That way my process can be critiqued and corrected.

Example

if "f(a) =f(a')", then " a = a' "

Interpretation

the given logical statement above is like an "instruction manual" in which if I have f(some a) = f(some b) then it will always result in some a equaling some a'.

And if I observe a counter example to this then that would mean that the overall example statement is wrong and therefore it is not defined as being that said thing, in this case

being the definition of a one to one function.

That being said if I have the function

f = {(1, a), (2, a), (3, b)} and I do some searching I find that f(1) = f(2). Because of this I can use the above example logical statement.

if f(1) = f(2), then 1 = 2. However this is not the case and therefore the initial statement is thereby false and thus it is not a one to one function.

 

Is this interpretation correct?

 

if you meant the derivation function,then your implication is incorrect!

because  [math] f(2x)=f((x^{2}+c)')  [/math] but   [math] 2x \ne x^{2}+c [/math]

if you meant whether  1-1 is equivalent of this proposition (given below) ,then yes!

"f(x)=f(y) --->> x=y"

but if you are asking whether ,being well defined is equivalent meaning of 1-1 ,then no.

let see one example given in the figure.

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

Yo need another parameter besides C.

you can use other constants that I did not write. (e.g.: one of other curvature might be written as: x^3 + b ...)

but this should be written like something this: 

[math] \frac {x^{2}}{a^{2}}+\frac {y^{2}}{b^{2}}+ \frac {z^{2}}{c^{2}}=1[/math]

this is elipsoid, but I can't find the correct equation for that curvial object above.

oh,my hodja from my BSc has replied just now. this thread can be closed ...

thanks to my lovely hodja.

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

Is this homework?

no.

could someone help me please,I need this object's mathematical expression in cartesian coordinates.(The drawn area 3d coordinates please)

Thanks in advance.