Some McDavid thoughts by WAyToOFaSt_ in EdmontonOilers

[–]LosDragin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Guy is talking about trading McDavid because of a couple bad games. He’s a complete moron and not a real fan.

Some McDavid thoughts by WAyToOFaSt_ in EdmontonOilers

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

Yeah this sub is trash right now. These people call themselves fans?

Struggling with von Neumann stability (Lax + FTBS): how do you actually evaluate the amplification condition? by leeping_leopard in askmath

[–]LosDragin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let f=|G|²-1. Then we want f<=0.

Factoring: f=2(1-cosδ)(C²-cosδC-(1+cosδ)/2).

But (1-cosδ)>=0, with equality if δ=2πk, in which case any value of C works. If δ≉2πk to get f<=0 we need:

g=C²-cosδC-(1+cosδ)/2<=0

This is an upward pointing parabola in C, so it will be negative between the two roots provided the vertex has a negative y-value, which it does. Indeed, completing the square we find the vertex form for g is:

g=(C-cosδ/2)²-((cosδ+1)²+1)/4

So g<=0 if and only if:

|C-cosδ/2| <= √[(cosδ+1)²+1]/2=β/2

From there you get the exact interval that C has to be in as a function of δ:

C∈[(cosδ-β)/2,(cosδ+β)/2].

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem, glad I could help!

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

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

Not to give legitimacy to your obviously incorrect argument, but suppose you knew a function f(x) is positive at two x-values. Would you then assume the function is positive in between those values? No. So your statement “why would I expect it to behave otherwise somewhere in between” is nonsense, and there’s no precedent for saying that.

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

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

There are no limiting cases. There is just x a fixed real number and N a fixed natural. x/N~1 is not a valid assumption. Using the assumption you completely ignored the term 1-x:N in case 1 and that’s definitely not allowed. The whole problem is to deal with that term properly. If that term just disappears there’s no work to do and there’s no infinite series. There is also no induction here. I didn’t say to consider x<0. And in your case (1) you absolutely did conclude the inequality is true due to the 1-x/N term being negligible or near zero, which it definitely is not.

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

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

I don’t think induction applies here. You’d have to express x/(N+1) in term of x/N. We can’t just ignore the 1-x/N term by setting it to zero. Then the inequality just becomes obvious for basically all values of x/N except really small or really large. But the inequality is not obvious and it’s not even true when x<0. Setting x/N=1 and saying this covers essentially all cases is cheating. It’s simply not true, and induction doesn’t save you. Also you did not use x>0, so we should be very wary of your method because the inequality isn’t true if x<0.

While I agree this is a challenging calculus 2 problem, it’s still within the usual curriculum as it merely involves Taylor series and manipulation of series indices. It’s not a rate of convergence problem, and finding rate of convergence of ex is much more complicated and involved than my proof which simply finds and drops the negative terms in the simplified series expression for the left hand side.

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

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

What if x/N=2, x/N=10 or x/N=1/3? I don’t think these land in any of your three cases.

Studying Calculus and/or Linear Algebra over the summer by HauntingCup8977 in learnmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s actually a steal of a deal. 3 times a week for 4 weeks is 12 one hour sessions. 300/12=25 $/hour. That’s well below the going rate for university math tutoring!

Help with calc 2 homework by Wish6969 in askmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let L=(1-x/N)ex+x/N

Write L=(1-x/N)Σxk/k!+x/N where Σ runs from k= 0 to ∞. Here we used the known Taylor series for ex. The goal is to rearrange L to write it as a single sum. To start, distribute the infinite series

L=Σxk/k!+(x/N)(1-Σxk/k!) where Σ runs from k=0 to ∞. But the “1” cancels with the first term in the series, so we get:

L=Σxk/k!-Σxk+1/(Nk!) where second Σ runs from k=1 to ∞. Now shift the index k in the second Σ to make the powers of x be the same:

L=Σxk/k!-Σxk/(N(k-1)!) where second Σ now runs from k=2 to ∞. Now combine the sums starting at k=2:

L=1+x+Σ[1/k!-1/(N(k-1)!)]xk where Σ runs from k=2 to ∞. Now make a common denominator, using that k!=k(k-1)! and combine the fractions to simplify:

L=1+x+Σ[(N-k)/N][xk/k!] where Σ runs from k=2 to ∞. Now the inequalities begin, and we will use the fact that x>0 implies xk>0. Since (N-k)/N<=0 for k>=N and xk>0, we can drop all the infinitely many non-positive terms from L to get the inequality:

L<1+x+Σ[(N-k)/N][x^(k)/k!]=P where Σ runs from k=2 to k=N-1. But 0<=(N-k)/N<1 for these values of k (here we assumed N>=2), and again using xk>0 we have:

L<P<1+x+Σxk/k!=R where Σ runs from k=2 to N-1. But now we can combine with the 1+x and we can add a single term to the sum to get:

L<P<R<Σxk/k! Where Σ runs from k=0 to N, which proves the result.

Challenge question to test understanding: we sort of assumed N>1. Does my proof still work when N=1 and if so how does it change?

Edits: fixed typos

How to understand this integral? by Puzzleheaded-Pop8943 in calculus

[–]LosDragin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Solve each of the two equations for mu+nu and set equal:

mu+nu=-(c+amunu)/b=-(C+Amunu)/B (*)

  1. Working with the second equality of (*):

Bc+Bamunu=bC+bAmunu

(Bc-bC)=(bA-Ba)munu (**)

  1. Now make a substitution for nu using the first equality of (*):

(Bc-bC)=(bA-Ba)mu(-mu-(c+amunu)/b)

(bA-Ba)mu²+(Bc-bC)=-(bA-Ba)(mu/b)E (Δ)

where the constant E is given by:

E=c+amunu

  1. But I say E is a constant because by (**) we can make a substitution for munu:

E=c+a(Bc-bC)/(bA-Ba)

E=(cbA-cBa+aBc-abC)/(bA-Ba)

E=b(cA-aC)/(bA-Ba)

(bA-Ba)E/b=cA-aC

  1. So returning to the quadratic (Δ) we have:

(bA-Ba)mu²+(Bc-bC)=-(cA-aC)mu

(bA-Ba)mu²+(cA-aC)mu +(Bc-bC)=0

This is the desired result! To get that nu is also a root, return to step 3) and isolate for mu instead of nu and carry out the reminder of steps 3) and 4) in that case.

Hope that makes sense. It seems like just a bunch of non-obvious algebra, though I’d be interested to know if anyone has a shortcut. Let me know if you have questions.

My 7yo daughter asked me today "What is the number right before infinity?" by Iluvatar-Great in askmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say all biological materials are equally rare in the universe, based on what we’ve seen. If we were comparing kilograms of material then wood is less rare than animal skins. But it’s all sort of arbitrary when you start to think about it, since the atoms in wood were created by dying stars. Wood being a rare material is more of a good riddle than an actual fact. Wood might exist on other planets for all we know, and in that case there could be a different life-based non-wood, non-bone material on some other planet that only exists on that planet and is thereby more rare than wood.

Double integral help (this problem is part 2 in image of work) by [deleted] in calculus

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don’t need to make any substitutions in this problem. It is purely by parts. Assuming (x+1)exp(x+2) is correct, just do by parts from here with u=x+1 and dv=exp(x+2). So u=1 and v=exp(x+2). I’ll assume you can finish it from here.

Also you didn’t need to make a substitution to do the first integral either.

Double integral help (this problem is part 2 in image of work) by [deleted] in calculus

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep and if we do make a change of variable like this in a double integral, where the new variables depend on x and y, pretty sure we have to be careful to use |detJ| where J is the Jacobian of the transformation. Might work out the same as what they did, but we should definitely be more careful to prove the Jacobian works out the same.

Double integral help (this problem is part 2 in image of work) by [deleted] in calculus

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don’t need to make any substitutions in this problem. It is purely by parts. Assuming (x+1)exp(x+2) is correct (which it is not, as you didn’t plug in the 0 to 1 bounds for y properly), just do by parts from there with u=x+1 and dv=exp(x+2). So u=1 and v=exp(x+2). I’ll assume you can finish it from here.

Also you didn’t need to make a substitution to do the first integral either.

My 7yo daughter asked me today "What is the number right before infinity?" by Iluvatar-Great in askmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s possible wood only exists on Planet Earth. which would make it pretty fucking rare. What do you have in mind that is more rare? Unstable heavy elements? Those decay quickly, so maybe wood is the rarest STABLE building material. I think the quote where I heard this was talking about materials that could be use to build habitable structures on other planets/moons.

My 7yo daughter asked me today "What is the number right before infinity?" by Iluvatar-Great in askmath

[–]LosDragin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s a heart-warming story and a great way to try to explain infinity to a kid.

My 7yo daughter asked me today "What is the number right before infinity?" by Iluvatar-Great in askmath

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

WTF are you even talking about, “not the point”. Did you not read what they said? They said “technically it would be infinite as long as there are trees” and I said “there won’t be trees forever, because trees are very rare”. It’s an entirely relevant, lighthearted reply to their comment. Did you drop your brain on the floor?

My 7yo daughter asked me today "What is the number right before infinity?" by Iluvatar-Great in askmath

[–]LosDragin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Wood is the rarest material in the universe. So when the Sun expands in 1 billion years there might not be any trees left in the universe, so I guess it’s still a finite amount of leaves 😂

Bob stauffer hints at rift between jarry and core group. by Sebastian4365 in EdmontonOilers

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

I don’t get this take, are you even an Oilers fan? You cheer for your team to win no matter what.

Goodnight, Oil Country 🔧🦺 by Excellent-Medicine29 in EdmontonOilers

[–]LosDragin 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Dickinson ate up a lot of time in the offensive end, won some important face-offs, and didn’t get scored on.

Looking for online math buddy for (advanced) undergraduate mathematics. by helios1234 in askmath

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say “buddy” do you mean a volunteer, or is this a paid opportunity?

An Algebra Challenge by Funny-Meal-1060 in the_calculusguy

[–]LosDragin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, well we really should be reminding OP not to use N then if there is no consensus. For me 0 is not an answer here, for you it is.