scguy

Bmaxwell, the equation u came up with seems ok but u forgot that if 2 points are connected then there is only 1 connection and not 2 so the answer of 12 u got for 4 connected particles would actually be 6 which can be seen from the drawing. BTW the reason i asked the question was because i thought it might have something to do with the so called singularity, and thus the number might have some significance. I admit i strayed away from the chess topic but i thought that would get people interested.

The further ahead the computer can calculate then the better it can play chess, as u say its unfeasable at the moment for a computer to think of every single possible move for the whole game but maybe in the future lol. I think thats when casparov won't have a chance

I read that when IBM were building deep blue they had to find innovative ways to get around the fact that chess can produce more combinations of moves than all the atoms in the universe, this is obviously beyond what any computer can currently cope with. How did they work out the total number of moves? And, i dont know if this is a viable question but say i wanted to work out how many connections could be made between every atom in the universe ie every atom is connected to every other atom regardless of distancs etc. How would this be calculated and would the number be of any significance?

I really am not sure what the question is asking for, the reason i posted was because the velocity of car b was not specified. How is the question supposed to be completed in this way? My mechanics 1 exam is tomorrow btw, i hate not knowing how to approach these ambiguous questions, maybe its a mistake. btw i dont't know how to resize, it looks pretty rediculous lol. Try saving it and then viewing on picture preview.

I wouldnt normaly post so many questions but i have a mechanics test next week and my teacher takes ages to respond. I would just like to know the best way to answer the attached question which is from a past test paper. Thanks.

I dont know why i didnt just assign an arbitrary value to the length, the further from the horizontal the more leverage the supporting wire gains and also the ratio still remains constant, i feel so stupid now

This question is out of my study guide but i am not sure if it can even be answered as it does not say how long the rod is. G= 10ms^2 Q: A uniform rod of mass 20kg is hinged at its lower end and supported at 60deg to the verical by a horizontal string attached to its upper end. The upper end of the rod carries a load of 40kg. Find the tension in the string. Now, surely if i dont know the length of the rod then it could be 1000m long or 1mm which would give very different moments about the axis at the hinged end and hence different tensions in the string. Either i am completely missing the point here or this has to be a typo.

The course is completed over a 3 year period (full time), after the core syllabus is completed i have a choice of many different fields: computer science, communication equipment, medical equipment, microelectronics and processors. There is a few more but i cannot recite them off of the top of my head, i have a good idea what direction i am going in but i want to see where my interests take me in the long run. I will need to get at least a 'C' or above in both A-levels and i was told that Physics is almost essential to the course and thus an A-level in that subject should be very beneficial and will make some of the theory easier. The adviser also said that maths is not necessary to get on the course which i thought was strange, i hope to much time will not be wasted on teaching stuff that should already be known before the course. ie calc. For the people who have already done or are currently in the process of completing a similiar degree i would be interested in knowing how long it took (as one of the posts above makes out 3 years is not enough) and also how long it took for u to find employment in your field once finished. Thanks.

Why do u think people dont get splatted against the serving trolley on airplanes when they get out of their seat? Its just that inside the plane eveything is moving at the same rate so if u were to jump then u are still moving at the same rate as the plane and so will land in the same spot. the only time this does not happen is when there is an acceleration or retardation. I think newtons 1st law describes this kind of motion, an object will carry on its fixed path unless influenced by any outside force. Correct me if i am wrong.

I am going to be doing a degree in electrical engineering once i have finished my A-levels (maths/physics). I will have approx 9 months before i start and i would like to learn some theory as i only really do pretty basic stuff in physics with regards to circuits etc. What kind of books should i start out with to get me at a reasonable level of knowledge before i start the course?

If a particle is fired up with a velocity ''u'' then ''t'' seconds later a second particle is fired up with the same initial velocity and from the same place, prove that the particles will meet after: (0.5t+ u/g) Where g is gravity. The equations used are just the basic equations of motion, i have gotten an answer similiar but i cant see how to prove this exactly.

I follow your reasoning to a certain extent although i have not studied complex numbers or anything of that kind yet so it will probably make more sense once i have. I had assumed that because the first 6 terms were more than the first 3 that there could not be a=0 or r=0 because then we would still have a series but it would not increase as the terms progressed. I appreciate your detailed explanations all the same.

Differentiating a distance or displacement time graph will give the velocity at the point considered which i am sure everybody is aware, differentiating again will give the acceleration of the said object. These facts are fine and dandy but what if i was to start with a whole bunch of data for both distance and time co-ordinates eg: (1,2.6) , (1.26, 3) , (2.57, 3.32) and so on. How do i go about turning a series of co-ordinates into an equation so that i can differentiate and find the velocity at any point? (not considering straight lines lol). Its probably more practical to take the tangent at the point considered but i know this can be inaccurate.

Why would you try and say that (r^2+r+1) is equal to zero? That would invalidate the whole expression ie 8 . 0 = r^3 . 0 which would be 0=0, we get nowhere. Also if a=0 then we get 0=0 again. Since the 2 expressions that cancel are identities i didnt think it would matter what value they have, as they will always cancel to leave r^3=8.

Here is my way of working out the solution, i would appreciate some other methods to give me some ideas of how best to do these kind of questions: Q: the sum of the first 3 terms in a GP is 9 times less than the sum of the first 6 terms, find the ratio. Here is my solution: since: 9(a+ar+ar^2)= a+ar+ar^2+ar^3+ar^4+ar^5 8+8r+8r^2= r^3+r^4+r^5 factorising: 8(r^2+r+1)=r^3(1+r+r^2) canceling: 8= r^3 therefore r=2.

I know how to integrate terms etc but i just was not to sure about INX and 1/x with regards to logs etc.

It might sound like a stupid question but when not dealing with logs is it ok to integrate 1/x into INX? The reason i ask is because the course i am doing right now does not directly state that this applies to all cases ie when not dealing with natural logs involving INX, ie: 1/x dx= INX (1) and INX dx= XINX-X (2) So, is (1) true for all cases?

I was watching a documentary on the hubble and the commentator mentioned something about the telescope using reaction wheels and gyroscopes to point itself and then keep pointing in any particular direction. I know that gyroscopes have a stabilising effect but can they really exert force to move the scope in the right or wrong or even any direction? I thought that if say a wheel is used to create a turning force on the scope then when it was brought to rest it would have the opposite effect and we would be back where we started. How does this kind of system work?

Ok, here is the result i am trying to prove: log(base a)x= log(base B)x / log(base B)a. Sorry about the notation but i didnt have time to write it properly.

I thought it might be able to be worked from the information i provided but (i tried for a long time), i got the same answer u did. The whole proof seems to rely on the fact that n^2/m=1 which i am not really to happy about. I will post the rest of it later. Thanks.

I understand everything apart from the part that is circled in red, could somebody please explain how that is obtained from the information given. Thanks.

Umm......where exactly did u come from? I know what u mean though, i had the idea that the parents do indirectly create their children, even though they may not have any idea how it is done. I was thinking more along the lines of 2 less comlex organisms building a more complex organism regardless of the methods.

Got it, i know it is not really complicated or anything but i just wanted to check i was on the right track with the concept part. U must be an expert using latex I will have to learn myself.

If humans cannot create something smarter than themselves, i ask the question: how smart were einsteins parents?

I find this subject very interesting. I really hate the way there is a social stigma attached to talking about anything scientific or technical. I find it paradoxical that for example a good knowledge of football is more important to most people than even a simple understanding of maths and science. Even though science has brought these people everything that they need to indulge their ''hobbies'' it is still looked down upon as something that nerds and social misfits do, i really am astounded at peoples ignorance sometimes.