imatfaal

Benice - i have seen your question on a few fora, but not sure what it is about. Could you explain further? Is it a representation of an equation with three plus variables? Your last message seems to say it is a real figure disguised. What significance does the black section in the bottom left have? Or the obvious multiple layers on the right hand edge?

In trig, tangent is the opposite divided by the hypotenuse in a right triangle. In other words, its a relationship between the sides. Tangent is also a place that touches a circle or curve at only one point. In terms of a unit circle, its sin(x)/cos(x).

 

And a secant line is just a line that intersects a curve or circle at just two points.

NO!

Jeez! Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent.

For heaven's sake - Silly Old Harry, Caught A Herring, Trawling Off Afghanistan

SOH CAH TOA

Sin = Opposite over Hypotenuse Cos=Adjacent over Hypotenuse Tan = Opposite over Adjacent

take a right-angled triangle - the side that does not touch your angle is the opposite, the long side is the hypotenuse and the short side that touches your angle is the adjacent.

The secant is the reciprocal of the cosine function ie 1/cos - ie hypotenuse over adjacent.

This is basic trig HamsterPower

the tangent and secant have other definitions as well . The Tangent is a line that "just touches" a curve - this is the same as saying it is perpendicular to the curve at that single point. the secant is a line that cuts a curve twice. But I would think that your teacher was talking about basic trigonometry. It's worth learning - it seems abstract at first, but it is incredibly useful. If you are having trouble make a post in the homework forum and I am sure people will talk you through it

And Steevey - if you don't know don't answer

Jackson - I am familiar with the Daily Mail. To give you a USA based analogy - posting The Daily Mail as a source for data is probably not far from an American citing the National Enquirer; their stories are not quite as ludicrous and they pretend to be serious journalists, but there reputation of mincing up data and printing lies and half-truths is awful.

My statistics were merely provided to show that picking and choosing a particular crime and time range can totally distort the facts - you will note that I made no conclusion or comparison apart from the UK gun-homicide rate.

Just out of curiosity are you able to provide a schedule of the gun homicides within the USA for last 20 years or so - this http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita table seems to suggest that for death by gun at least the daily mail is a long way off the mark (note this is murders not homicides)

I have also heard it called Muphry's Law - which I really like

Rigney

Here are the figures for UK Homicide by Firearms

1990 60

1991 55

1992 56

1993 74

1994 66

1995 70

1996 49

1997 59

1998 54

1999 49

2000 62

2001 73

2002 97

2003 81

2004 68

2005 77

2006 50

2007 59

2008 53

2009 41

Your quoted source is picking and choosing his years and crimes - if I could post a table I would, but here is a link. http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-01940.pdf

There is no doubt the UK had a surge in guncrime in the late 90s early 00s - but today it seems to be back to the levels of the early 90s.

His body/skeleton is still there - its only the head, which was disastrously restored, that was moved to the basement storage. I didn't realise that there was an LLM devoted to Bentham - seems a bit turgid. And I still disagree with your dichotomy that the only alternative to a strict bean-keeping calculus is romanticist...touchy-feely; but I don't think we will persuade each other on that matter.

A fiddle of gold against your soul says I think I'm better than you.

[pedant]

A fiddle of gold against your soul 'cause I think I'm better than you

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cDm_ZHyYTrg

at 39-45secs

[/pedant]

Fermat's Last Theorem by Simon Singh is a great popular science read.

Is dark matter necessarily super dense? I didn't think we even had that amount of info - all we have is a rough idea of mass per cubic volume, and that could be a few clumps of very dense or a sea of small and light. there is definitely a huge amount of it - but then it is in a very large volume .

Gravity works on the product of masses not on the density; the density could affect how close the centres of mass could be, but on cosmological scales in this matter this wouldn't be important.

But to construct an ethos based on extreme hypotheticals is mis-guided. We avoid using hard cases in the law - hard cases make bad law and we shouldn't make ethical judgments based upon a fictitious scenario that only really avails itself of one solution. I prefer to act and think of myself as someone who does not reduce others to numbers within a benthamite calculus - the search must be for eudaimonia not for felix

BTW: I am a graduate of gower street and owe a lot to Bentham and his cohorts (and enemies) in re-creating London as a city with universities - but I cannot stand some of his work. I will give him a nod on your behalf next week if I pass through UCL .

Mark - check out Walter Lewin's first year physics lectures. His entire Physics 101 at MIT from a few years back is online. You can get it through iTunes or youtube. He is a superb and engaging lecturer. An enthusiastic amateur should be able to follow the course with a little help from wikipedia.

Know the feeling. Here's a house point.

Problems in medical ethics always have to be assessed in context. Thus if you have two individuals, one of whom has no kidneys and must 'live' in the absolute horror of hemodialysis and the other of whom has two functioning kidneys, the total human happiness of that pair of people is quite low, since it is about zero for the hemodialysis patient and average (say) for the person with two healthy kidneys. But if you order that the healthy individual donate one kidney to the dialysis patient, the total human happiness of the pair will increase by a factor of ten thousand, since the donor will suffer minimal reduction in life quality, while the recipient will experience a nearly infinite improvement in life quality.

Apart from the mathematical problem that Mr S pointed out above - that form of calculus can be used to justify practically any heinous act. The use of ethical committees in areas like this is to avoid sweeping generalizations and the reduction of humans to a book-keeping exercise. For the record I have no problem with organ donation and find myself on the "permissive side" of most arguments that crop up in similar areas; however I would take issue with statements such as this

So if you count the total gain in real, concrete, measureable, experienced human happiness from transplanting the organs from the brainless anencephalic to the living human in need of a transplant, there is a nearly infinite improvement in net human happiness.

It's not "real" nor "concrete" (it's your (ie the judges) opinion, it's definitely not "measureable" (as it is all based on a supposition that we can measure our own or another's happiness) , and it's not experienced (it's a possible future gain) - thus I beg to disagree with your modern modest proposal

Yes, back in the day glass windows were not of uniform thickness. Usually when installing the window, the thicker part is placed on the bottom so that it isn't top-heavy. Some old installations have the thicker glass on top.

Appreciate that clarification. I always liked the idea that glass was flowing unbelievably slowly and causing the distortions on old glass; such a shame it isn't true.

Dragon

I am sure that others who actively teach would echo this point, you need to be rigorous and careful in your maths! The first question in this post had a potential problem - and this one is just plain wrong. There is no x component in the numerator!

Maths is subtle and abstract, it can require a strange sort of weirdness in the brain; but it also requires boring exactness and strict book-keeping.

Will repeat - learn to use laTex - or be obsessive with your brackets and double checking

Dunno if the news of lost dvd-roms made it across the atlantic; over the past few years a number of data-disc with unencrypted/insufficiently encrypted data regarding health/pension/tax matters have been lost in the UK. I seem to remember that the people who found the first few that came to light handed them to newspapers - and the subsequent publicity brought to light other losses; at one point it seemed endemic.

Can you imagine the liability if a data-store of this list of STD infections was lost? One would hope no one would be stupid enough to store the data in a manner that could be lost and encryption was mandatory - but all it takes is one sloppy transfer...

It helps to know what terms mean. If glass was a supercooled fluid it could easily be disturbed with a nucleation site and form a crystalline structure, and like supercooled water would be still liquid. Glass doesn't do that. Some people thought glass was a viscous liquid, but there is no evidence of that. Contrary to myth, glass does not seem to flow, although it will if you heat it up enough to soften it. On the other hand, amorphous solid describes it very well, since glass has no specific crystalline structure and like a solid does not flow on its own. Me, I just call it glass.

"Contrary to myth, glass does not seem to flow" - Mr S - are you referring to the seeming thickening and distortion towards the bottom of panes of old glass, cos (although I won't assert a reason) lots of old glass does have a noticeable change. I work on a road with buildings that are all 300+ years old and listed - most of the glass is original and does seem to vary quite considerably down the pane (small panels around 8-12 inches wide by 15-18 inches high). It is possible this lack of uniformity was part of the manufacturing process 300 years ago and the panes were glazed in a manner to put the distortions at the bottom; but this anecdotal evidence would alternatively seem to be able to lend credence to the myth that you say is disproved.

Dragonstar and Mooeypoo

Just to set my mind to rest - there are two different questions represented in Mooey's post. The first after "Also, just to make sure, this is the exercise?" treats 3y^4 as the exponent of 3x^3

[math]\big( \frac{3x^{3y^{4}}}{2xy^2} \big)^3[/math]

The second after "You start from.." treats y^4 as a multiplicand of 3x^3

[math] \big(\frac{3x^3y^4}{2xy^2} \big)^3[/math]

You did say you had removed some brackets - so I am not sure which question was the correct one. everyone has answered the second one; perversely when I read your question I had assumed the first was the question (it's got a bit more meat to it). Shows the benefit of being dull and putting in all the brackets - or using laTex. There are some really easy to use generators on the web if you cannot remember the codes.

I assume the exercise means simplify since there's no equation to solve (?).

 

Also, just to make sure, this is the exercise?

[math]\big( \frac{3x^{3y^{4}}}{2xy^2} \big)^3[/math]

 

Okay, yeah it looks like a simplification problem. You start from:

[math]\left( \frac{3x^3y^4}{2xy^2} \right)^3 = \frac{3^3x^9y^{12}}{(2x)^3y^6}[/math]

Or he is merely not very good at observations, or a crackpot that manipulates their results, or a fool who doesn't understand how to make correct observations in the first place.

There is the possibility of a paradigm breaking experiment - but nothing you have provided is even close to that.

Oh Lemur - but the barbarians are at the gate. Science is under attack - not merely in terms of funding, regulations flowing from extreme moral positions, and big business's casual attitude to publication of result, to name but a few - it is under attack from those who believe their opinion and anecdotes are a valid argument against empirical evidence.

Here is just one link - that I believe shows an area in which science is losing out to pseudoscience http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html and the dangers associated with a lack of quantitative empirical testing

So you claimed Biretta aided your argument for the existence of observed and confirmed FTL speeds - I refuted your answer with text quoting Biretta; and that's not a good answer? I think I call troll. Oh yeah - and your browser is still screwed

So we can now be sure that you don't even read your own citations

Please note this is from your claimed source of proof John Biretta - from the press release on the very page you cited

The term `superluminal motion' is something of a misnomer. While it accurately describes the speeds measured, scientists still believe the actual speed falls just below the speed of light.``It's an illusion created by the finite speed of light and rapid motion," Biretta said. ``Our present understanding is that this `superluminal motion' occurs when these clouds move towards Earth at speeds very close to that of light, in this case, more than 98 percent of the speed of light. At these speeds the clouds nearly keep pace with the light they emit as they move towards Earth, so when the light finally reaches us, the motion appears much more rapid than the speed of light. Since the moving clouds travel slightly slower than the speed of light, they do not actually violate Einstein's theory of relativity which sets light as the speed limit"

Oh by the way - thanks for dismissing the time I spent trying to sort out your browser problems and labelling those who tried to help as troops (of what? the orthodoxy).

I an in the strange situation of agreeing in part with all three of the above posts. I cannot believe this administration or the next will be rushing to get involved in any way other than diplomatically.

I would also recommend that you read the link in swansont's most recent post in the diplomatic cables of doom thread - it seems that US diplomat's comments about the tunisian regime might already have had effect

I use chrome for my non-work stuff such as SFN and others - and firefox for work related. I am sure there is a way of keeping everything totally separate with one browser but using two makes it very easy

What sort of home-brew browser are you using? I have just viewed my post (logged out) with chrome, firefox, safari, mobile safari, msie, and opera - and everyone provides a simple link that can be clicked on to goto "let me google that for you". Download chrome, firefox, or opera and use them - will make your browsing much easier.

back to the post - just tell us which page you think is being censored. Cos I now think it's not censored - it's just your mad browser is doing something weird!