Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
One is not prime
- Thread starter Doctor Q
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MongoTheGeek said:
Right on the 2nd forumal that would be the case. but the first one is the one that shows my 0^0=1. I I said in the earily post 0 is just a speical number and has it own set of rules attach to it.
of of them being 0^0 and 0! both =1. Reason for it is there are quite a few mathicaicl proof out there that would not work if that ws not the case. A lot of staticical proof have to relay on that being the case other wise they would always fail at 0 and not be a proof.
And like i said I have used both of them in my math class to get the correct anwser. Some thing require it to work.
Also I believe there is a proof out there that shows why 0^0 and 0!= 1. My Stats teacher was telling us about it. And told us that it is grad level work to do and we did have a hope or pray of understanding it. It what math grads would write there these paper on. So it a really nasty thing. 30+ pages of junk.
MongoTheGeek said:
Engineering by chance?
My favorite quote found in a linux random quote file was "Five is a close enough approximation to infinity."
Which was actually taught in undergraduate circuits classes. With an exponential decay which is run into quite often with resistors and capacitors the general rule of thumb is that steady state is reached after 5 time constants. Mathematically you never reach steady state, but observationally 5 is approximately equal to infinity....
UKnjb said:The fish with skeletons of bone are called Teleosts and the ones with skeletons made of cartilage are Elasmobranchs.
Josh said:
I think that this helps prove my argument from my previous first post. I would happily tell anyone who would listen what the two types of fish were called.
My error in not being fully correct and relying on half-remembered facts. Teleosts are certainly bony fish, but are only members of the super-class called Osteichthyes. Whereas Chondrichthyes is the super-class that contains the sub-class Elasmobranchs of which the sharks and rays are members. Mea culpa and well corrected Josh.
I don't remember that one, but perhaps this story about how to measure the height of a building with a barometer will do, even though the story (which gets passed around the web regularly) may not be real.whooleytoo said:
Doctor Q said:
a similar story: http://gshotts.com/HUMOR/exotherm.htm
there are many variations of it.
andiwm2003 said:
I like that no matter how many types of these stories they are, they all end with some sort of sentence that is suppost to just be awe-inspiring.
"That student was Albert Einstien."
"That student received the only A in the class."
"That student was blind, deaf, missing 5 limbs, and climbed Mt. Everest to finish the exam."
atszyman said:
What is scary is how true that is. Engineering is not always about these exact calculations. It about understanding the principles. Quite a bit the close enough works. I was a CE major up until last semster to where I switch to CTEC (I was about 3 years thouhg the CE degree plan some teacher where shock since it rare for some that far in the degree to change). But buiding most of the time if they are with in 10% the answer is good enough. Heck normally they dont even know the loads accurately enough to begein with (there a reason for the factor of safety which over 2:1 in most cases after all the adjustments go in).
heck in a lot of cases I would do a lot of close enough work using 2 or so sig figs. Heck the intermetice work would be pretty poor in sigfigs. Answer on a test could varry as much as 5-10% and all of them be right just based on how much rounding we did in the work.
A lot of stuff is eastimated on in the head with out much pencil and paper work and boom close enough. Would we turn in those numbers on a design no, But on a quick change that how we did it. It really scarying how many corners engineers will cut in doing math. Quite easimation that will work are used.
Estimating is something that they really dont teach much any more. I very good skill to have. Being able to look at a problem and really quickly in your head figure out about where the answer would be. With out that skill so many mistakes are made and people will not see when there answer is way off base.......
Either way it kind of scary on how a lot of engineering work is done.
I DID prove it otherwise if you want soTimepass said:
The definition that 0^0=1 is not accepted by everyone. And as you can see, you can "prove" both definitions. I won't argue that yours is needed for many mathematical calculations. But it's just not the only truth.
Timepass said:
Yeah. We were told if you had CoF to more than 2 decimal points you were deluding yourself. We did a lot of work with estimation. I had some real old school professors. Drawing vectors on graph paper and then measuring the answers.
One of the most important things that was drummed into us was knowing what we didn't know, and picking the right way to estimate. Things are heavier, parts are weaker, and nothing is manufactured to spec.
Timepass said:
0^0 is 1 depending on how you come at it. Thats what I showed with the limits. I am guessing that the proofs that require it approach from the x^0 side.
calculus said:
Terrible isn't it? That's just how these things are, people overcoming (truly) impossible odds.
I truly apologize, but you misspelled "agreed".
Anyways, here in Northern California (which is very liberal in numerous respects), I've particularly noticed that there are many teachers who think it is their place to teach too-revisionist history to the point that they are lying to their students (I've especially noticed this with regards to Israel, and I always make a point to correct them).
I've found that being passionate, patient, persistent, and (most important) correct always helps when getting teachers to do what you want, whether you're a parent, student, or fellow teacher. It also helps if you can prove that you're correct.
Best of luck!
EDIT Sorry, I only read the first post.
Anyways, here in Northern California (which is very liberal in numerous respects), I've particularly noticed that there are many teachers who think it is their place to teach too-revisionist history to the point that they are lying to their students (I've especially noticed this with regards to Israel, and I always make a point to correct them).
I've found that being passionate, patient, persistent, and (most important) correct always helps when getting teachers to do what you want, whether you're a parent, student, or fellow teacher. It also helps if you can prove that you're correct.
Best of luck!
EDIT Sorry, I only read the first post.
I once worked briefly as a class assistant in a US university (I'm from the UK).
One day it was announced that there would be a class discussion on drugs.
Ah good, this would be an interesting discussion - it's a nuanced topic after all.
The lecturer walked in, wrote on the whiteboard "ALL DRUGS ARE BAD" then we spend the rest of the session giving reasons why drugs were BAD BAD .
That was it. I couldn't believe it.
What about medical drugs? Drug stores? Wine? Coffee? Sugar? Rastafianism? Native Americian sacraments? Shamanism? Self-exploration? Different laws in Holland / Spain? Coca cola? Artistic and literary relevation through opiates and hallucinogens?
That was one of the most dumb things I ever saw, and most of the class knew it too.
In any UK university, all these topics would be brought out, and students would be free to discuss their personal experiences in class - we're all adults after all.
One day it was announced that there would be a class discussion on drugs.
Ah good, this would be an interesting discussion - it's a nuanced topic after all.
The lecturer walked in, wrote on the whiteboard "ALL DRUGS ARE BAD" then we spend the rest of the session giving reasons why drugs were BAD BAD .
That was it. I couldn't believe it.
What about medical drugs? Drug stores? Wine? Coffee? Sugar? Rastafianism? Native Americian sacraments? Shamanism? Self-exploration? Different laws in Holland / Spain? Coca cola? Artistic and literary relevation through opiates and hallucinogens?
That was one of the most dumb things I ever saw, and most of the class knew it too.
In any UK university, all these topics would be brought out, and students would be free to discuss their personal experiences in class - we're all adults after all.
Add "polite" to that list. Teachers, being human, may turn defensive if you accuse them of making a mistake, especially in public. If you ask them about it instead ("Isn't the earth in fact not flat?") you can make the same point and they'll be more likely to accept the correction.asherman13 said:
I suspect that some teachers deny making a mistake, then later look it up and find out you were right.
And thanks for the spelling korrection.
You are absolute correct. We apologise and I will make sure everyone in the U.S. corrects these bad habits from now on.dynamicv said:It's not just your maths teachers in the USA that get it wrong. Look how badly your English teachers spell. Too many "Z"s where "S"s should be, and not enough "U"s.
And whilst we're on the subject, it's AluminIum
MongoTheGeek said:
Meh.
You can do that one until you blue in the face but I think I take my math prof answer stating just accept it as a rule that 0^0 always = 1. She would definantly be beyond anything you all have here in mathmatics considering her Docorate is in math.
Also the other one is 0! =1. Another one that just better to accept as fact than do the proof. As I said this is the stuff theise papers are writen on.
Funny you should mention this in this thread. All through school you learn that people thought the earth was flat and that is why Columbus sailed across the Atlantic. But I heard in college that people back then knew the earth was round. No ever thought the earth was flat. We teach kids that as just an easy way to give a reason why Columbus sailed the ocean blue.Doctor Q said:
And too many "er"s and not enough "re"s...dynamicv said:It's not just your maths teachers in the USA that get it wrong. Look how badly your English teachers spell. Too many "Z"s where "S"s should be, and not enough "U"s.
And whilst we're on the subject, it's AluminIum
Sorry, but limits don't help in this case as the function needn't be continuous.MongoTheGeek said:
Wow, you don't know our background at all. Just because your prof says so, doesn't make it the only truth. In fact, this is what the thread is partly aboutTimepass said:
I just repeat what I said before: even the mathematicians differ about this one point.
It might just be the right apporach by your prof to teach it to you this way.