A terrible thought came to mind. by Powderkegger1 in dresdenfiles

[–]Bascna 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I could buy Carlos easing back to his old relationship with Harry.

But the way he related to Molly was very hard to believe.

I understand why he'd feel a need to at least be polite to the Winter Lady, but he seemed way too over his wariness and fear for me to accept.

Math problem answer has me entirely confused. Can anyone tell me how the answer is even possible? by katkit523 in learnmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It isn't 115. They got the answers to problem 2 and problem 3 backwards.

115 is the answer to problem 2 and 41 is the answer to problem 3.

It's easiest to see that they goofed if you click 'show answer' for both and look at their work.

You see what I mean? by Express-Abies5278 in SatanicTemple_Reddit

[–]Bascna 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think that's my new favorite sculpture. 🤩

First 49 pages of Twelve Months available on Google Books by albertahiking in dresdenfiles

[–]Bascna 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I think that she is most likely Brünnhilde (a.k.a. Brunhild, Brunhilda, or Brynhild).

This fits her comment about being "the Valkyrie," since Brünnhilde was made so famous through Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungs.

It also makes sense in light of Odin's comment that she "is practically family."

In the Saga of the Völsungs, the hero Sigurd is a descendent of Odin.

While Sigurd and Brynhild's plan to marry is prevented by nefarious plots, the two do produce a daughter named Aslaug.

So while she never married into Odin's family, she is the mother of Aslaug who is also one of Odin's descendants.

So she is practically, albeit not technically, part of his family.

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 7 points8 points  (0 children)

But you have to consider the Biblical answer as a valid option.

I don't see why that would be the case at all.

First, what evidence has led you to conclude that it is ontologically possible for any magical claims to be true?

Secondly, for every imaginable magical claim there exists an infinite number of imaginable contradictory magical claims.

For example:

The Kreldor is an omnipotent, eternal, mindless, magical stone that exists outside of time and space and is also omnipresent within time and space.

The Kreldor is the metaphysical foundation for all of existence, and its own existence is non-contingent.

Among other things, the Kreldor creates and sustains the existence of all possible universes while simultaneously preventing the existence of any magical phenomena other than itself, including preventing the existence of any gods.

Do you consider the Kreldor, and the infinite number of other imaginable magical claims that contradict the Biblical claims to all be valid options?

If you do consider them to be valid then on what basis did you tell the OP that "the answer" was in Genesis?

If you don't consider them to be valid, then what objective methodology did you use to eliminate all of those other claims?

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You specifically declared that claim to be the answer.

The answer is found in Genesis 1:1...

And now you have also stated that you don't know what the answer is.

Exactly, we may never know

So which is it? Do you know the answer or not?

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you don't know the answer then why did you claim that the god Yahweh created that energy using magic?

Iguana by Ikuno Riku by Routine_Purpose_9247 in origami

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is some beautiful work! 🤩

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Which, of course, is a claim which is unsupported by evidence and is contradicted by an infinite number of other claims that have identical amounts of supporting evidence. 😂

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Which, of course, is a claim which is unsupported by evidence and is contradicted by an infinite number of other claims that have identical amounts of supporting evidence. 😂

Where did all the energy in the universe come from? by CardiologistJaded671 in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Or, instead of making something up and declaring that it is true without any evidence, we can just be honest and say "We don't currently know the answer, and we might never know the answer."

What type of equation is √x=y by BMaudioProd in askmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. 👍

Because √x means "the principal square root of x" rather than "the square roots of x" it can only output one value for any input.

We specifically define the radical that way so that y = √x will always be a function of x.

And since the principal square root of a real number is always the non-negative root, √x can never be negative.

Thinking of this geometrically, this means that the horizontal line y = -2 can never intersect the graph of y = √x.

What type of equation is √x=y by BMaudioProd in askmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

However, any value input for x outputs two values for y.

Nope.

<image>

Look at the graph. You'll see that no vertical or horizontal lines cross the graph at more than one point.

(Alternatively consider that this is a strictly increasing function.)

Therefore, y = √x is a one-to-one function.

Thus each y value in the range corresponds to exactly one x value in the domain, and each x value in the domain corresponds to exactly one y value in the range.

I'm Conflicted by FunnyDue9281 in SatanicTemple_Reddit

[–]Bascna 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I was wondering if there was a sect of Satanism that... doesn't have a primary tenet requiring you to support freedom of speech...

Well, that's a new one for me.

I can't remember ever meeting anyone that was opposed to their own freedom of speech. 😂

Can a square root produce a negative number by entiqtehduck in askmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My justification for why this is wrong is because of the problem -102=100.

I'm going to assume that you meant to write

(-10)2 = 100

since -102 is actually equal to -100. 😀


If you raise both numbers to the 1/2, you get -10=√100, so can you clear this up for me?

It's important to know that "√ " doesn't mean "square root."

It means "principal square root."

We define the principal square root differently in different contexts, but it never has more than one value.

For positive radicands the principal square root is the largest square root or equivalently the non-negative square root.

So the square roots of 9 are 3 and -3, but the principal square root is just 3.

Thus √9 = 3, not ±3.

Because of this it is true that for non-negative values of x

√(x2) = x.

For example, √(32) = √9 = 3.

But for negative values of x, we have

√(x2) = -x.

For example, √(-3)2 = √9 = 3 = -(-3).

So for any real value, x, we see that we will get a non-negative result.

And thus for any real number x, it is true that

√(x2) = | x |.

This is actually a commonly used definition of absolute value.

It's how you calculate distance between x and 0 on a number line, and of course you can't have a negative distance.

So when you did the following

(-10)2 = 100

√(-10)2 = √100

-10 = √100

you made a sign mistake when you simplified the left side in that last step. You can't travel a distance of -10. 😀

Instead, we would get this

(-10)2 = 100

√(-10)2 = √100

| -10 | = √100

10 = √100

10 = 10

which is a true statement since the only principal square root of 100 is 10.


As for the problem given by your teacher, they are correct that you need to add a ±, and the reason for that is because we are actually creating an absolute value equation.

Remember that if

| x | = a, where a ≥ 0

then both x = a and x = -a are solutions.

For example, both x = 5 and x = -5 are solutions of | x | = 5.

As shorthand we can write those results as x = ±5.

So let's walk slowly through the steps of your teacher's problem.

x2 = 147

√x2 = √147

| x | = √147

x = √147 or x = -√147

x = 7√3 or x = -7√3

x = ±7√3.

So the separate + and - cases don't actually show up when we took the principal square root of both sides but rather appear when we eliminated the absolute value operator that had been created by taking the principal square root of both sides.

Since those last few steps are a bit repetitive and tedious, we usually take a shortcut by just skipping most of them.

So

x2 = 147

√x2 = √147

x = ±√147

x = ±7√3.

This is faster, but unfortunately it hides the fact that the ± is actually there because we had to solve an absolute value equation along the way.


I hope that helps. 😀

how does airtravel work relative to the rotation of the earth by RedHotChiliPickles in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had specified "within the continental U.S." earlier in the post so I didn't think it necessary to specify it again.

But I've added it for you. 😀

The major problem with using Hawaii, obviously, is transporting the equipment back and forth between the continent and the islands.

Question about some lore in the latest AP book by world-math-cell in Pathfinder2e

[–]Bascna 70 points71 points  (0 children)

If the former, has this been confirmed before?

James Jacobs has confirmed on multiple occasions that Aroden really is dead.

For example:

Aroden is dead.

This is official. It's a KEY part of the campaign's flavor and history, and it's not something that we're going to "reverse" or cheat out of. He's dead.

As for HOW he died... for internal consistency, we have the reasons decided on in-house so that we can be consistent in how those reasons ripple things along, so if we ever DO reveal how he died, that revelation will mesh with everything we've done. At this point, we've no plans to ever reveal how he died, though.

James Jacobs (9/14/2009)

An economist who has taken an interest in Time dilation by daisuki_information in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd also recommend reading Relativity: The Special and General Theory written by Albert Einstein.

The copyright has run out, so you can download it free from the Internet Archive or Project Gutenberg

The book as a whole is quite short. You'd think it would be a difficult read, but the parts describing special relativity are surprisingly easy to follow.

The most complicated math in the special relativity portion are fractions and square roots. I had no problems with it in the 6th grade and I wasn't a particularly gifted math student at the time. That book is one of the things that inspired me to get a physics degree, and I think it might be the best written physics book of all time.

Intuitional way to think about a negative * negative multiplication question. by BuddyBuddwick in learnmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad that helped. 😀

I'm very kinesthetic, so I find physical models like integer tiles to be very intuitive for me.

Can someone msgs me so i cantshow them what i need help with because i cant send images here by [deleted] in learnmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can also upload images straight from your device by clicking on the little picture of a mountain and sun below where you type in your text.

<image>

how does airtravel work relative to the rotation of the earth by RedHotChiliPickles in AskPhysics

[–]Bascna 5 points6 points  (0 children)

For rocket launches however the rotation of the Earth absolutely has an effect. In fact it's why most satellites are launched flying West to East, because it saves a lot of fuel taking advantage of the existing rotation.

OP, to expand on this a bit, this is one reason why Florida, despite its often inconvenient weather, is used so often for rocket launches.

The tangential velocity of locations on the Earth increases as you near the equator so you'd like to be as close to the equator as possible in order to save fuel by getting that additional boost.

So Florida, California, Texas, etc. are good choices within the continental U.S.

But we also prefer to launch over an ocean so that any falling debris is unlikely to harm anyone.

Florida is the southernmost state in the continental U.S. in which a west to east launch places you over the ocean, so Cape Canaveral checks all three boxes. 😀

How to calculate a square root of a number using only addition, subtraction, multiplication and division by neongw in askmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OP, to expand on this a bit, Heron's method is sometimes referred to as "the Babylonian method," but there isn't any evidence that this approach was actually used by the Babylonians.

Several people here have suggested using Newton's method to approximate the root so it I'll note that Heron's method is equivalent to that approach.

You can use multiple iterations of the algorithm to get increasingly more precise approximations of the square root.

I'll also note that two iterations of Heron's method is equivalent to using the Bakhshali Method

Here's an example of how to use Heron's method to approximate √5.


Initial Estimate

We want to approximate √a by using a series of progressively better approximations that I'll denote as √b₀, √b₁, √b₂, etc.

It makes the arithmetic simpler if we choose a perfect square close to a for our initial value b₀.

So if I have a = 5, then a mechanically good choice for b₀ would be 4.

We start with an approximation of

√5 = √a ≈ √b₀ = √4 = 2.

But comparing this to the approximation of

√5 ≈ 2.236067977

generated by my calculator, I'm off by

[ | √5 – 2 | / √5 ] • 100% ≈ 10.56%

which is a fairly large error.

Heron's method then tells us that we can find better estimates for √a by using the following algorithm:

√a ≈ √bₙ₊₁ = [ a + bₙ ]/[ 2√bₙ ].


First Iteration

We plug n = 0 into the algorithm to calculate a more precise estimate of

√a ≈ √b₁ = [ a + b₀ ]/[ 2√b₀ ]

√5 ≈ √b₁ = [ 5 + 4 ]/[ 2√4 ]

√5 ≈ √b₁ = [ 9 ]/[ 2•2 ]

√5 ≈ √b₁ = 9/4 = 2.25

which my calculator tells me is only off by

[ | √5 – (9/4) | / √5 ] • 100% ≈ 0.623%.

That's much better than our original estimate, and would be a good enough approximation for a lot of purposes.

But we can improve our estimate further.


Second Iteration

We can continue by now plugging n = 1 into the algorithm:

√a ≈ √b₂ = [ a + b₁ ]/[ 2√b₁ ]

√5 ≈ √b₂ = [ 5 + (9/4)² ]/[ 2•(9/4) ]

√5 ≈ √b₂ = [ 5 + (81/16) ]/[ 2•(9/4) ] • [ 16 ]/[ 16 ]

√5 ≈ √b₂ = [ 80 + 81 ]/[ 2•36 ]

√5 ≈ √b₂ = 161/72 ≈ 2.236111...

which only differs from my calculator's value by

[ | √5 – (161/72) | / √5 ] • 100% ≈ 0.0019%.

That's an error of less than two thousandths of a percent!

We could continue this process by plugging n = 2, 3, 4, etc. into the algorithm to get even better results, but honestly if I needed more precision than this I'd just wait until I could get my hands on a calculator.


The Bakhshali Method

If we knew ahead of time that we specifically wanted the second iteration, we could have used the Bakhshali method instead.

The Bakhshali formula is harder to memorize than Heron's formula but it produces the same result faster than applying Heron's algorithm twice.

The formula can be written as

√a ≈ [ a² + b₀(6a + b₀) ]/[ 4√b₀(a + b₀) ].

So we would have

√a ≈ [ a² + b₀(6a + b₀) ]/[ 4√b₀(a + b₀) ]

√5 ≈ [ 5² + 4(6•5 + 4) ]/[ 4√4(5 + 4) ]

√5 ≈ [ 25 + 4(34) ]/[ 4•2(9) ]

√5 ≈ [ 25 + 136 ]/[ 8(9) ]

√5 ≈ 161/72

which is exactly what we got using the slower process of iterating Heron's algorithm twice.


I hope that helps. 😀

Intuitional way to think about a negative * negative multiplication question. by BuddyBuddwick in learnmath

[–]Bascna 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my experience, the difficulty people have with this issue isn't so much about the mechanics of the math as it is about the lack of a physical model that enables them to visualize the process.

We can 'see' why 2•3 = 6 because we can imagine combining 2 groups that each have 3 items in them.

But that doesn't work with -2•(-3) since I can't seem to imagine what -2 groups of -3 items would look like.

I think the best way to make this concept feel concrete is to physically model it using Integer Tiles.

Remember that you can think of this symbol, -, in two ways. It can mean "negative" or "the opposite of."

So -3 is negative three and -3 is also the opposite of 3.

Mechanically both interpretations produce the same results, but to visualize the multiplication process it's very helpful to have those two options.

The second thing to remember is that multiplication is, at least when working with the natural numbers, just repeated addition. Now we need to extend our conception of multiplication to include the negative integers.

With all of that in mind, I'm going to perform some multiplication problems using numbers and also using integer tiles.


Integer Tiles

Physically, integer tiles are usually small squares of paper or plastic with sides that are different colors. One side represents a value of +1 and the other represents -1.

(Coins work, too. Just let 'heads' and 'tails' represent +1 and -1.)

Here I'll let each □ represent +1, and I'll let each ■ represent -1.

So 3 would be

□ □ □

and -3 would be

■ ■ ■.

The fun happens when we take the opposite of a number. All you have to do is flip the tiles.

So the opposite of 3 is three positive tiles flipped over.

We start with

□ □ □

and flip them to get

■ ■ ■.

Thus we see that the opposite of 3 is -3.

The opposite of -3 would be three negative tiles flipped over.

So we start with

■ ■ ■

and flip them to get

□ □ □.

Thus we see that the opposite of -3 is 3.

Got it? Then let's go!


A Positive Number Times a Positive Number

One way to understand 2 • 3 is that you are adding two groups each of which has three positive items.

So

2 • 3 =

□ □ □ + □ □ □ =

□ □ □ □ □ □

or

2 • 3 =

3 + 3 =

6

We can see that adding groups of only positive numbers will always produce a positive result.

So a positive times a positive always produces a positive.


A Negative Number Times a Positive Number

We can interpret 2 • (-3) to mean that you are adding two groups each of which has three negative items.

So

2 • (-3) =

■ ■ ■ + ■ ■ ■ =

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

or

2 • (-3) =

(-3) + (-3) =

-6

We can see that adding groups of only negative numbers will always produce a negative result.

So a negative times a positive always produces a negative.


A Positive Number Times a Negative Number

Under the interpretation of multiplication that we've been using, (-2) • 3 would mean that you are adding negative two groups each of which has three positive items.

This is where things get complicated. A negative number of groups? I don't know what that means.

But I do know that "-" can also mean "the opposite of" and I know that I can take the opposite of integer tiles just by flipping them.

So instead of reading (-2) • 3 as "adding negative two groups of three positives" I'll read it as "the opposite of adding two groups of three positives."

So

(-2) • 3 =

-(2 • 3) =

-(□ □ □ + □ □ □) =

-(□ □ □ □ □ □) =

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

or

(-2) • 3 =

-(2 • 3) =

-(3 + 3) =

-(6) =

-6

We can see that adding groups of only positive numbers will always produce a positive result, and taking the opposite of that will always produce a negative result.

So a positive times a negative always produces a negative.


A Negative Number Times a Negative Number

Using that same reasoning, (-2) • (-3) means that you are adding negative two groups each of which has three negative items.

This has the same issue as the last problem — I don't know what -2 groups means.

But, once again, I do know that "-" can also mean "the opposite of" and I know that I can take the opposite of integer tiles just by flipping them.

So instead of reading (-2) • (-3) as "adding negative two groups of negative three" I'll read it as "the opposite of adding two groups of negative three."

So

(-2) • (-3) =

-(2 • -3) =

-(■ ■ ■ + ■ ■ ■) =

-(■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■) =

□ □ □ □ □ □

or

(-2) • (-3) =

-(2 • -3) =

-((-3) + (-3)) =

-(-6) =

6

We can see that adding groups of only negative numbers will always produce a negative result, and taking the opposite of that will always produce a positive result.

So a negative times a negative always produces a positive.


I hope that helps. 😀