studiot

Since you have already demonstrated that you can correctly perform the arithmetic of fractions, I see no reason why you can't work out the answer to this for yourself. So are they the same? When you have done that you might like to consider this. Most people just use the formulae you quoted in your post#1 without thinking about the detail or the rules. The rules are: The % must all be calculated on the same base. The % must be mutually exclusive. This is why I made such a fuss about the difference between and and or in my post#7 To show this try calulating the following %. [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{200}}{{500}}} \right) = a\% [/math] [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{260}}{{500}}} \right) = b\% [/math] [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{300}}{{500}}} \right) = c\% [/math] [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{360}}{{500}}} \right) = d\% [/math] They are all reckoned on the same base in accordance with rule 1. I have already discussed rule 2 in post#7, read it again. now calculate [math]\left( {b - a} \right) + \left( {d - c} \right)[/math] What do you notice?

I don't know if that was meant as an answer to my post or not so I will give the benefit of the doubt. You have been told umpteen times You can't just add the percentages. You can certainly simplify something but not to the point where you state it incorrectly. A number is a number and does not change. You have several different numbers So 360 is a different number from 300. 300 does not got to 360 that is meaningless. Let us state your latest post (quoted) correctly. The difference between two numbers, when expressed as a percentage of the smaller one is given by the equation [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{{\rm{Larger - Smaller}}}}{{{\rm{Smaller}}}}} \right)[/math] You have correctly used this twice to obtain the % difference between 200 and 260 and between 300 and 360 in your first two calculations. BUT And I have already said this, The numbers for the third calculation are different again from any of the first two sets. As before you have performed this calculation correctly [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{{\rm{Difference1 + Difference2}}}}{{{\rm{Smaller1 + Smaller2}}}}} \right)[/math] Which is equal to [math] = \left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{{\rm{Larger1 + Larger2 - Smaller1 - Smaller2}}}}{{{\rm{Smaller1 + Smaller2}}}}} \right)[/math] because you have the [math]\left( {100} \right)\left( {\frac{{{\rm{Total}}\;{\rm{Difference}}}}{{{\rm{Total base population}}}}} \right)[/math] Does this help?

Although it is not clear what ions were in the water, here is a tragedy that demonstrates the conductivity of water with ions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40388161

Remember that long thread last year? Well the world record longest sniper shot had to be made using correction for the curvature of the Earht. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40372403

Some more detailed indication of the intended use is needed. Is this for real life or for a story? Are you thinking of a cloaking fabric against IR detectors for military or quasi military purposes? Infrared devices with reflectors are used in surveying and navigationover distances of several kilometres. The reflectors are of the corner reflector type. So I suppose you could consider microbead corner reflectors coating the fabric, like sequins. Some more detailed indication of the intended use is needed. Is this for real life or for a story? Are you thinking of a cloaking fabric against IR detectors for military or quasi military purposes? Infrared devices with reflectors are used in surveying and navigationover distances of several kilometres. The reflectors are of the corner reflector type. So I suppose you could consider microbead corner reflectors coating the fabric, like sequins.

I've no idea if that is the same paper to be honest. There was only one Englishman who could have attended the lecture on November 25th, 1915 and that was not me. In case you missed it there was a war on. I see I said 'submitted' but the report in my source actually states 'presented' so I suppose if it is not in the text of the paper it would have been in Einstein's presentation speech/lecture. Ferreira : The Perfect Theory : page 21 : paragraph 3.

However others teach it, it certainly can't be taught from ignorance.

Diode - Resistor OR gates required no power source and were used in early logic boards.

Well I still have no real idea what the OP meant, but here are some thoughts. Storage (memory) is arguably the most important element of electronic (and even non electronic) computers. All those ones and noughts are totally useless if you cannot organise them, store them until you want them and then retrieve them. Pretty well every computer chip or module built of discrete components (semiconductor or vacuum tube) contains some form of storage. In order to perform these functions you require pulses and to generate these pulses you require active devices - that is semiconductor or vacuum tube devices. Most modern computer memory has to be 'refreshed' many times a second or the stored information leaks away. Again pulses are required.

Lovely post, Carrock. +1 But would someone please remind me what the actual OP question was?

Anyone has to learn to walk before they can run. I offered you the opportunity to work through the walking stage to reach your equation in considerably more detail than you will find in any single textbook or three. And the only running you did was to run away from this opportunity. So I will leave you with the the following thoughts. Your very very elementary equation is not always true. For instance it is not true in the case of point particles with mass, spinning on their own axes. These have angular momentum, but r = zero. Again it is true in the case where r refers to a plane curve. But it is untrue in the case of a twisted three dimensional curve. There are many other complicated cases to explore.

It's not an 'either or' situation. If you want to consider energy you are better off working in terms of forces. Using the curvature tensor is substantially more difficult. This is a very common situation in Science and Technology. There is more than one method of analysis. Lazy people like me choose the easiest to get the job done.

Roger, think of the difference between a freewheel and a fixed hub in a bicycle.

I'm glad to hear you have some ideas of your own, particularly when you are making a point I hadn't though of. +1 ( I must admit I have always cleaved to the notion that CS should really be Computer Engineering or Computer Technology - it is at best an applied science) This is a good topic for you, although posting the actual essay title here would be useful. It encourages you to read widely and broadens your horizons. There will be plenty of time for immersion in the gory details of CS within your course. Good fortune. Talking of reading, perhaps I can offer an idea or two. The growth in computer technology has prompted the deveopment of a new branch of Mathematics - Discrete Mathematics (you will study much of this) and even Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science (note their use of the terminology) Graham, Knuth and Patashnik. Addison Wesley. Another line of enquirey develops what I said about Science being a repository of knowledge. No one would classify that unfortunately famous textbook Physics by REsnick and Halliday as anything other than a Science text. Yet Archimedes theorem is over 2000 years old and only used by engineers today. Hopefully this has planted a seed; it is your job to develop this. Remember that Cs cannot claim patent on information theory so don't rely on that principle alone (although it is a good one). Many Sciences and even other disciplines have an input to information theory. Hope this helps

I don't have much time tonight but note that going from the second equation to the last [math]T = {\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial S}}} \right)_{V,N}}[/math] and [math]P = - {\left( {\frac{{\partial U}}{{\partial V}}} \right)_{S,N}}[/math] so the first term is [math]S\frac{\partial }{{\partial \left( {\lambda S} \right)}}U\left( {\lambda S,\lambda V,\lambda N} \right)[/math] This is therefore ST similarly the second term leads to -PV I will try to do more tomorrow.

I would be interested to learn what comment you have about this more detailed article from London South Bank University.. (Where the information you objected to came from.) http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/electrolysis.html

According to post#1 CS is defined as a Science, for the purposes of the homework. Users of homework help often seen to write a confusing account of what they might actually mean.

My calculater says 120% for this +1 The course material may also offer specific routines tailored to a particular machine.

I agree with Trurl, arguing that CS is not a science is not helpful to the OP, particularly in a homework thread, and also with his offered outline plan for the essay. @hipmatt You say you have found lots of articles to say why it is a science, but none to say why it is not. Do you have no ideas of your own or are you just going to copy what others have said ? If so are you going to pass these ideas off as your own or are you going to acknowledge the sources?

+1 to Trurl for bringing focus back to the thread. I particularly liked the bits about Education academics adn the invocation to define Science (though I would use the word explore). Hands up all those who studied Domestic Science at school. How about Agricultural Science? You can get a Phd in that. Is Science only about discovering new things ? Or does it include cataloguing and classifying existing knowledge and practice and establishing relationships between elements of this knowledge?

Either marry the Boss's daughter or befriend his son and get a job as assistant to him. Either way should be sinecure enough for you.

For the same reason you require thicker wire in power circuits in your house than you do for lighting circuits. That doesn't hardly describe you application as I asked ??

Yes seawater is conductive is the simple answer, if you want more detail, you will have to supply more detail of the application. Electrolysis of water starts at about an impressed voltage of 1.24 volts, but external heat from the surroundings is also required for significant action at this level. Electrolysis of the chloride ion does not start until the impressed voltage is above 1.36 volts. If you keep below these values you are pretty safe to use the seawater as a conductor. This limits the available current and very large electrode areas can be required if much current is to be passed, but this is not a problem for low current applications such as measuring resistivity in a seawater fishtank.

Steiner is very good and very clear to help you with the maths you need rather than the detail the mathematicains want you to know. Takes a student through advanced high school maths and chemists through at least two years of chemistry maths at university. General Chemistry - Petrucci Chemistry - Lewis and Evans Both excellent modern reading at your level, both cover all branches of the subject at introductory level Organic, Inorganic, Analytical, environmental and radiochemistry. A fun book is Molecules - Atkins Go well in your studies and come back here with any questions, there are some good to great chemists on this site.

No, as imatfaal says you can't just add the percentages. You need to create a new population with either stomach or a liver complaint, by adding the individual populations of each, just as you have done above. A small correction to the wording here. Hence Total % change in stomach and liver patients within a year is: should be Hence Total % change in stomach or liver patients within a year is: Further you have to make the assumption that none of the 300 stomach aptients are also counted in the 200 liver patients. Otherwise you do not have enough information. That is no patient has both a stomach and a liver complaint.