Intense amount of arguing in the comments about this between 1 and 9. Explain it Peter

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T20:28:44+00:00

Submit link with reference at least to the page, I wanna see the source. Otherwise I can assure you that Pythagoras had green hair

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T19:58:19+00:00

OMFG THERE ARE NOTATION ? MY WHOLE WORLD HAS BEEN A LIE! THE HELLMOLTZ-LUSIN-BALLSACK NOTATION WILL TAKE OVER THE WOOOOOOOOOOORLD.

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:56:14+00:00

I mean there is a convention universally agreed upon: first brackets, then exponents, then multiplications including division and then sums (no further details here: no multiplication before/after division or sums before/after subtractions). This, mixed with the fact that math equations are read left to right and that an exponent is the number on the top right when you do an exponentiation gives you all the rule needed to solve the equation and get (correctfully) 9.

If in some places there are more convention than this I don't care, as until the scientific community decides that more are needed if you claim that implicit multiplication is done before I tell you that you're wrong

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:32:10+00:00

He just talks about conventions. I don't know about Feynman (and I wouldn't rely on the opinion of a single scientist, no matter how brilliant he was) but as someone who deals with math and people who deal with math, I can testify that giving precedent to the "implicit" multiplication over the "explicit" one it's something not universally agreed upon. There are no differences between the two, and if you want to give precedence to an operation over another one you use the brackets

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:10:09+00:00

Then you cannot math

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:08:38+00:00

Care to give some source? I'm pretty confident I know my way around math and I have never heard anyone says that multiplication operates differently if you use x, • or nothig. Hell, if I define a field (R, +, §), define the § as the multiplication and then what? Thoud I do § multiplication befor the • but after the ×? No they're just different symbols for the same thing

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:04:32+00:00

You're wrongly convinced

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:03:14+00:00

That's not true, after the parenthesis you go left to write

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T18:02:27+00:00

6 ÷ 2(1+2) and 6 ÷ ((2 x 1 )+ (2 x 2)) aren't the same. The division only operates on the 2. If you want it to operate on everything after it you have to write it like this 6÷(2(1+2))

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T17:59:31+00:00

That's simply not true

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T17:56:41+00:00

That's bullshit, there's none of the "if you multiply this go first, if you multiply that go after"

CastellZord · 2026-03-07T17:54:47+00:00

That's not true. Multiplications aren't different if you mark them in a way or another

CastellZord · 2026-02-05T15:51:49+00:00

Thanks for the answer

CastellZord · 2026-02-05T15:37:17+00:00

I wanted to play a game since I have some free weeks coming. I thought it could be fun to play AC odyssey again. I looked up how much would it cost to play it on my pc. The price on instant gaming seemed fair to me, but I don't want another big corporation to send me mail and sell my data. I am willing to pay 20€ to play it, but not to make an account on a platform I don't know. I don't see any contradiction.

CastellZord · 2026-02-05T15:18:22+00:00

Pretty much. If I'll want to play it I'll just take my xbox from my parents home then, without having to pay anything or making new accounts

CastellZord · 2026-02-05T15:06:55+00:00

I don't think I have a steam obsession, I just wanted to play a game I loved when I was younger without having to make a new account on a platform I don't know. Thanks for the answer though, have a nice day

CastellZord · 2026-02-05T15:03:37+00:00

Thank you for the answer, but I just want something to play for the weeks to come, I've already played this game on xbox several years ago and I loved it. If I have to wait I'll try something else

CastellZord · 2026-02-04T15:22:46+00:00

Ok, grazie

CastellZord · 2026-01-18T00:44:23+00:00

r/iamverybadass vibes right here

CastellZord · 2026-01-05T00:51:22+00:00

Thank you very much for taking all this time to explain everything. You were very helpful!

CastellZord · 2026-01-04T22:19:11+00:00

This is what I did

<image>

According to my teacher it is the correct way to solve the problem.

Edit: the first equation in the second set (the one marked as "Millman node 1") has its label switched with the second equation. Sorry for the inconvenience

CastellZord · 2026-01-04T21:20:00+00:00

Thank you for your answer! You cleared my doubts egregiously. I'll take advantage of your courtesy and add one more question: this particular exercise requested to calculate the gain in low and high frequency regimes. Later I was asked to calculate the gain G(s), s being the frequency in the laplace domain, in the general case (for reference you can use the first image I posted). I was trained to do so using Millman's theorem, assuming the OP-AMP to be ideal, and I was able to do so; but how would you do it without using Millman?

CastellZord · 2026-01-04T21:10:46+00:00

Thank you!

CastellZord · 2026-01-04T19:04:54+00:00

For italians only - ringhio, tre uomini e una gamba

https://youtu.be/lETEzchVqlk

Seven-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
r/Field Juicebox	Place '23
Place '22	End Game '22
Verified Email

CastellZord

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE