@Johannes_B: I know, but I wanted to do it on my own. I wanted to implement them with work sheet headers, class examen headers, functionality to connect to a MySQL database etc, standalone-exercise-books
@HarishKumar tasks isn't a list that uses LaTeX's list mechansim. The environment is a pseudo-environment: it collects the environment body and splits its contents at every appearance of \task which makes nesting difficult to implement (at least for me – and I was too lazy to look for a working solution)
Does anyone have any suggestion for full width tables (that goes into the margins) with longtable and KOMA-Script? I am using twosided document, which seems to mess up everything
I tried the changepage package and adjustwidth, but it doesn't seem to work with the table
@tohecz Well, apparently the wonderful one million dollar worthy proof depended on the limit being 1. I hope my first year students will do a bit better. ;-)
Consider the following diagram.
A box is on a table that can move circularly and the box is connected by a string attached to the fixed bearing. At $t=0$, the box is at rest, the string of length $L$ is loose so the distance between the axis to the box is $R_0<L$. The coefficients of static a...
@InPSTrickswetrust You can solve for static friction case right? Centrifugal equals static friction in terms of omega. That's the limit rot speed. Then since you say the string can't twist or whatever. Observer notion is irrelevant here. You are not considering relativistic effects anyhow.
@InPSTrickswetrust Not really. Same applies to a mass on a running mill. It's a matter of coordinate selection. Trust me. You don't need an observer notion. It's not relevant. You need to express the velocities with respect to a point on the disk. That's less fancy but more correct.
Just a point. Observing or not.
@InPSTrickswetrust By the way, Hot licks seems to answer the question already.
@percusse Choosing the type of observers (inertial or non-inertial) is very important to establish the equation. But for both observers the mathematical representation will be the same. Hot Licks's answer might be correct.
@InPSTrickswetrust Why do you think the mass can slip? You need some additional real stuff for the slip to happen. In other words what would make the box not accelerate in your formulation as fast as the disk?
@Manuel Using a command with “variable behavior” is to be discouraged, in my opinion. I'd much prefer \foreach for an explicit list and \foreach* for an implicit one.
So you could do \NewDocumentCommand{\foreach}{smm}{\IfBooleanTF{#1}{\manuel_foreach:on{#2}{#3}}{\manuel_foreach:nn{#2}{#3}}}. Then define \manuel_foreach:nn and create the variant \manual_foreach:on
@egreg Okey, and for the last part there's no way to combine the option to have one argument or a weird argument delimited by ;without an auxiliar command?
To see which would be the “most straightforward way” of doing a check for a next token (t\bgroup?) and then calling an auxiliar command delimited by ;.
Consider the following diagram.
A box is on a table that can move circularly and the box is connected by a string attached to the fixed bearing. At $t=0$, the box is at rest, the string of length $L$ is loose so the distance between the axis to the box is $R_0<L$. The coefficients of static a...
