I got this working for a 2 point emitter, but speakers are typically circular or rectangular (and eventually 3D) but for the sake of simplicity I'm trying to model a theoretical ribbon tweeter
I figure I'm going to need some kind of integral
I think I could come up with the integral representing the actual wave that the the speaker produces, however I want to graph the amplitude of that wave with respect to frequency
Am I correct in categorizing quotients in general as a form of unbounded knapsack problem, and if so, doesn't that mean that all knapsack problems can be reduced to n-dimensional quotients?
Also, as I was out, I was thinking more about the applications of division. Well, if you can easily divide anything into equal parts, then that means you can use division to compute nth roots, and if you can compute nth roots, then you can compute the circular functions.
I was watching a Bloons TD Battles video on YouTube. I noticed tower defense games here, and most of the things I find to be fun challenges, are some form of NP-hard problems, but that this in particular is also a form of knapsack problem with vertices and edges.
And, if I had to guess, the kinds of problems are the easier side of NP-hard because as game mechanics, whether it be in something like RTS, RPG, or tower defense, or even an FPS, it can't be so difficult a problem that it becomes intractable in a real-time recreational scenario.
does the fact a cross cap can have a color as a fourth dimension all along the edge where it is cut and reconnected reflect the fact they are connected: a to a' and b to b' while in real-life i can not connect a to a' and just to b??
because i can not connect them, i was just thinking if its another color then it reflects another time where they are connected correctly ..
I also dont get why the inner radius of a hole is gone in the quotient space..
im going to have din din now if someone could help me i would be so grateful lol !
Well, since f and g result in numbers in the broadest sense that I can imagine, $f : a_n \mapsto \mathbb{C}^n$ and $g : b_m \mapsto \mathbb{C}^m$. However, for most practical use-cases, we're working in $\mathbb{R}$.
So that also naturally includes things like quaternions (I hope).
@AMDG I don't know what you mean by that. I just mean that normally you would want to consider $f(x_0,\dots, x_n)/g(x_0,\dots,x_n):\Bbb C^n\to \Bbb C$ where $g:\Bbb C^n\to \Bbb C-\{0\}$
But sure, you can consider $\Bbb C^n\times \Bbb C^m \to \Bbb C$ if you want
Pain. I wish I had learned more terminology in school relevant to the applied mathematics that I now have to learn on my own.
@Alex A simple reason for why I'd want to generalize this (and learn how to properly describe that) I can explain in the simplest case for defining inverses of functions of n-dimensions to their respective counter-parts as a piecewise (n+1)-dimensional function where the extra variable maps to more unique values such as for defining inverses of complex functions by mapping every branch.
As a basic example, you could define inverses of the circular functions with values of cos, sin, or tan and the modulus of the angles to determine what the exact angle was if the modulus value is available. How that would be helpful? Not sure, though it would obviously be useful forensically to determine which of the infinitely many angles maps to a given vector that was used specifically.
I have found the equation of direct tangents. But while finding the equation of indirect tangent. I have to solve $4m^2+1-4m=4m^2+4$
where m is the slope of the equation. This should give two values of slope as there are two indirect tangents. But... Equation of one tangent is x=0 whose slope is $\infty$ (not defined)
I have never seen a formula that gives a distance between a line and a point, and that isn't exactly well-defined as-is. A line is a set of points. A point is a line in the degenerate case.
You must surely mean the distance between a point on a line and a point elsewhere on the plane.
And if so, then it's easier to just remember that it's $\sqrt{\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2}$.
I assume you mean to say the length of a perpendicular to a line that passes through a point.
Or rather the length of the perpendicular line segment that begins at some point on a line and ends at a given point.
Hm, I find that quite interesting how one gets these (regular) polygons from arrangements of uniform objects on a plane with rows or columns increasing or decreasing by one in number.
I bet there's a nice root-finding algorithm tied to that.
Yeah, simpler is better. Just remember that you can define any right triangle on the xy-plane as two points defining the hypotenuse of length $c$ and the points make up two of the three vertices of the right triangle. Then the legs, respectively, are of lengths $\Delta x$ and $\Delta y$ such that $\sqrt{\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2} = c$ by the pythagorean theorem.
And of course $\Delta x = |x_2 - x_1|$, $\Delta y = |y_2 - y_1|$.
Question: Let $\{X_n:n \ge0 \}$ be a time- homogeneous discrete time Markov-chain with either finite or countable state space $S$. Then
$1.$ there is at least one recurrent state
$2.$ if there is an absorbing state, then there exists at least one stationary distribution
$3.$ if all states are p...
@AMDG what Wolgwang says is correct. The distance between two geometric shapes is the infimum of the distances between any two points (which is well-defined).
@AMDG how can you say two things are not equal, when you don't seem to know what one of the things means?
If a shape has a smooth boundary, the distance from some point to that shape will be along a line segment that is perpendicular to that shape. That is where the term "perpendicular distance" originates.
@copper.hat. Okay, so it should be also $\int_{1}^{n-1} \log{x}\lt \sum_{1}^{n-1} \log{x}$? But, the integral takes infinite intervals, so how the sum is larger than the integral anyway over same interval please? That the part that confuses me.
Yes, well, how exactly does someone fix the kind of problems that I have? I don't really have the time to go through all of the lower levels of mathematics up to the point that I need because I must work; yet my ignorance concerning these things as well as formal terminology is a hindrance to communicating my ideas to others save by handing someone my code and having them decipher it.
For all practical intents and purposes, the only formal, common interface or medium of expression that I have for both realizing and describing my ideas is code.
And, you know, it's one thing to make a mistake in private. It is another to pass ignorance to another in your attempts to teach them.
It would be nice to go through all of "the lower levels of mathematics", but probably not necessary. At least knowing the areas of mathematics that apply to what you are trying to do would be useful.
Heh. Well, let's see. Calculus would be incredibly useful, but as most things in this area and others in mathematics, my knowledge has many holes, so I might know one topic but not another in the same area since I've mostly only looked for and directly went to the things I need to know without necessarily looing at the knowledge surrounding that thing.
Complex analysis seems to be incredibly useful and necessary with regards to cheaply performing computations on vectors.
(Especially considering our hardware is practically made for vector and matrix operations).
And then whatever I need to describe my metacompiler because I can guarantee you, I didn't get my design from a book; I just made it up and know it works because of its principles and the things that have been made manifest to me in all things in general by the grace of God, but even such a simple system which I have learned, I cannot express to others so easily as a "system of origins" which also describes my metacompiler.
I mean I can describe it in simple way because of how many times I've learned how to describe parts of it through trial and error in communication, but that is unsatisfactory.
It's primary inputs and outputs are decision trees, but obviously, it goes into more detail, and I don't believe it is relevant to this conversation directly.
The more one knows, the more one can draw on in different contexts, so the chances of knowing something applicable is better the more you know. Knowing the right thing to solve the problem on which you're working is often a crap shoot. Einstein benefited greatly from the differential geometry that was being developed at the time.
The question for now, at least, is how am I supposed to effectively "catch up" to these areas of mathematics that I need? I've never really been a fan of khan academy's way of learning, and in part because it doesn't let me learn fast enough. The classroom was never a fun and engaging learning experience. So I don't know what to do and where to go. I'm obviously not going to waste thousands on university.
@robjohn. They just wrote it $\int_{1}^{n-1} \log{x}\lt \sum_{1}^{n-1} \log{x}$, which is wrong based on montonically increasing property you mentioned?
@robjohn. If you can see, they did not change the boundaries of sum nor integral in the equation above
One more question please, for $n + 2^{k+1} - 1$, is not the time complexity supposed to be $O(2^n)$ (exponential), why the time in this case of amortized analysis is just $O(n)$? given that $k=\log{n}$ please?
Catalan's conjecture (or Mihăilescu's theorem) is a theorem in number theory that was conjectured by the mathematician Eugène Charles Catalan in 1844 and proven in 2002 by Preda Mihăilescu. The integers 23 and 32 are two powers of natural numbers whose values (8 and 9, respectively) are consecutive. The theorem states that this is the only case of two consecutive powers. That is to say, that
== History ==
The history of the problem dates back at least to Gersonides, who proved a special case of the conjecture in 1343 where (x, y) was restricted to be (2, 3) or (3, 2). The first significant...
If $k\ge2$, then $\left(\frac{p^{k-1}}{kp^{2/p}}\right)^p-\left(1-\frac2{kp}\right)^p$ is greater than $0$ and multiplied by $(kp)^p$ is much bigger than $2$
Similar to quadratics and cubics where there is an "axis of symmetry" for a particular value of $x$, is there one for a general value of a general polynomial where the degree is greater than 3?
@leslietownes I mean, if $f_3(x) = a_3x^3 + a_2x^2 + a_1x + a_0$, then the inflection point must be $x = -\frac{a_2}{3a_3}$. Can we consider $x = -\frac{a_2}{3a_3}$ as the axis of symmetry of $f_3(x)$?
i'm paraphrasing bruno de finetti, who worked with one of my professors. he said something like, nobody understands the fourier transform, it's this cave you wander into and then when you get to the other side maybe you've got something new.
@leslietownes Although confusion, must admit the guy who came up with it must have big brains. In this age with all the technology and materials available I find it hard to understand the concept!
soupless for a quadratic you can perform a reflection about the axis of symmetry and it maps the curve onto itself. i don't think it does this in the cubic case.
someone's just sent around a poll about whether we suggest to the management an 'app-based therapy product' where we can talk to therapists on an app. how about making the job less s--tty.
What is the difference between Fourier integral and Fourier transform?
I know that for Fourier integral, the function must satisfy
$\int_{-\infty}^\infty |f(t)| dt < \infty$, but what if I have a function that satisfies this condition: what does it mean to calculate Fourier transform and Fo...
@robjohn Now I can see for the case $k = 1$ but I don't have any idea to show the differnece in the case $k\geq 2$. Actually computation for check works I think but it's not a proof
this morning's innovation was insisting that her shoes, which she had just put on, were on the wrong feet, and swapping them. they were on the right feet.
@PeterJohn I have simplified the $k\ge2$ case so that we can show $n\gt p\ge3\implies p^n-n^p\gt7$ I have dropped all mention of $n=kp-2$. I now handle $n=p-2$ and $n\gt p$
Are maps between complex and real vector spaces which are defined like $T(\alpha x_1+\beta x_2)=|\alpha|T(x_1)+|\beta|T(x_2)$ of any particular interest? Or maybe $F(av_1+bv_2)=e^{ia}F(v_1)+e^{ib}F(v_2)$? just curious, don't have to entertain me
Hello ! A dirty physicist here which needs help ! my professor introduced the concept of Fourier serieses and Fourier integrals and then he connected it to Diracs delta distubution and derived the most ununderstandable thing there is, he did of course like a physicst, which means with neglect of all mathematical rigour, and since that how i understand, i am looking right now for a book about it
Can you please give me suggestion or atleast tell me in which subject i will find topics about this ?
Might want to start with mathematical physics textbooks, physics tends to use fairly advanced maths concepts in a way that makes them accessible for physicists
@PeterJohn I have simplified the $k\ge2$ case so that we can show $n\gt p\ge3\implies p^n-n^p\gt7$ I have dropped all mention of $n=kp-2$. I now handle $n=p-2$ and $n\gt p$
@MadSpaces Stein and Shakarchi's Functional Analysis, Chapter 3, Generalized functions, is a good introduction and quite accessible to undergraduates (I think that a general sophomore major in math has no difficulty to digest).
Hello, is it allowed to take $n^c$ out where $c$ is constant from growth function $n^c \times O(\frac{\log{a}}{n^c})$, so that we have $ \frac{n^c }{n^c } \times O(\log{a}) = O(\log{a})$
I have just glimpsed at the available pages on Google Books. Seemingly my impression is not quite incorrect - the treatment in Stein-Shakarchi is elementary.
The asker, in this case, is trying to make sense of his physics lectures in real time. A good applied math book is a better suggestion than the notion of learning basic analysis to understand the delta function as a distribution.
I'm talking about below baby Rudin. No notion of metric spaces or limit proofs.
No careful definition of the Riemann integral.
Sorta like telling someone who's had basic linear algebra and multivariable calculus to read Volumes 1 and 2 of Spivak's Differential Geometry to learn "basic" differential geometry. Doesn't work at all.
@schn that depends on the circumstances of the question, which is why I encourage the examination of particular instances where little-o is used.
@lonestudent I did, but I don't want to get into an argument where people's minds seem to be made up already. It is frustrating and usually a waste of time.
The question involved was short, but it was a question posed by someone who was confused about a point, not a regurgitated PSQ.
Since it had been brought to my attention, I thought that I would provide a more explanatory answer.
@shintuku I think that you could directly go with textbooks on probability. Most of them cover the necessary measure theory they need.
I have no background in probability, so my opinions are not that reliable. For example, for probability, I don't think that you need much about Radon measures.
@shintuku If you really need a measure theory reference specifically, I've found Axler's Measure, Integration, and Real Analysis to be clear to read. (But otherwise I'd defer to Yai0Phah.)
Hi, I am wondering: If we are given $B$ and need to show that $C\Leftrightarrow D$; is that equivalent to assuming $C$ and showing $B\Leftrightarrow D$? Thank you!
@lonestudent Peter John came to chat and asked if this answer was valid. It was, but to explain why I could either post here, or answer the question. I figured that answering the question would be useful to more people. I guess that the question may disappear entirely, now that I've brought it attention.
@robjohn Technically speaking, I'm not equipped to speak. My criticism is to philosophize about personality. "God" parable and etc. There's a lot of ranting in that room. They deleted many of my/others' non PSQ questions. Even the newly elected moderator found it unfair. When I make a criticism, they say, "We will flag you". And suddenly my best questions are downvoted. Too many comments are full of arrogance. You did not read, unfortunately..