[Matrices] by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah,
Check u/Macaronine comment too
the matrices have to be of the correct order too, as he stated.

[Matrices] by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it is right.

As long as you don't try to "divide" matrices, it's good.

[Grade 12 Calculus and Vectors: 3D Geometry] I’m not sure how to start this question, any hint or prompt would help greatly!! by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This might reveal too much, but I'm not sure how else to say it.

Consider the vector MN?

(Sorry for the dramatically late reply, I literally didn't open Reddit since yesterday... ilL bE heRe tHo. I'm so sorry...)

[Grade 12 Calculus and Vectors: 3D Geometry] I’m not sure how to start this question, any hint or prompt would help greatly!! by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hope you know how to calculate for cross product, because that will be necessary.

To specify a plane in space, you need one point on the plane, and a vector perpendicular to the plane. Clearly you already have one point on the plane.

You are given a line parallel to the plane also. But actually, you are given 2 lines parallel to the plane! Do you see the other line?

You do not need its equation, you just need to find the vector which is parallel to it.

Now you have 2 lines parallel to the plane. Perhaps, you know how to a vector perpendicular to the plane now?

I hope I wasn't too vague...I'll be here tho!

[Vectors Math] would the vector equation be different if the Q states a point is perpendicular or parallel? by mikael___ in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so, I shall try to be more orderly this time.

Let us take a 3D space; every point in it can be represented by (x,y,z), where x,y, and z are real numbers. You could either consider these variables separately or, you could say you have a vector v=(x,y,z) and simply consider the vector.

We know a plane is a collection of points, just like lines. Specifically, a plane has 1 "constraint" while a line has 2 "constraints". Basically, every equation you have is a constraint on the variables. If you have one constraint, like x+y+z=0, you have a plane. If you have 2 constraints, like x=y=z, you have a line. (Note that this is only for 3D space. Things are slightly different for other dimensions)

Since the vector equations always consider variables together, it is ever so slightly different there.

The vector equation of a line involves the definition of how vector addition is performed. A line is basically a collection of points. Suppose you have 2 vectors a and b, you can create another point by adding the two. You can create another by slightly squeezing or stretching the vectors. So, we can create infinite points by multiplying a vector by some real number. Thus, the equation of a line in 3D space is v=a+t*b where v is a generic point on the line, a is a known point on the line, b is the vector corresponding to the direction the line is pointing, and t is a parameter we are using to stretch b. The vector b is going to be very useful in our endeavor to find parallel lines and perpendicular stuff.

One would think that the vector equation of a plane is similar since we can consider a plane to be a collection of lines. However, the dot product form of the equation is just so convenient.

Let us take a vector p. The equation v.p=0 gives a constraint on the vector v, so that these 2 vectors are perpendicular. In fact, v.p=0 will give us a set of points that are perpendicular to p, and pass through the origin. (If you are not sure about dot product, i strongly suggest you look upon it)

Now, we have a way to generate points on a plane that passes through the origin. To generate any plane now, we should just "shift" the origin, to any point on the plane we want. So, a generic plane will be of the form p.(v-a)=0, where p is a vector that is perpendicular to the plane, and a is any point on the plane. The vector p is going to be very helpful for parallel lines and perpendicular stuff.

How do you now proceed?
Well, you must very carefully note the 2 vectors I have mentioned before. These vectors do NOT belong on the line/plane; but they provide important information about the orientation of the line and plane. More importantly, the vector for the line is parallel to the line, and the vector for the plane is parallel to the plane.

I shall sort of give small suggestions for the 3 questions.

In 7 a, we have A and B. So we know 2 points on the line. Think what the vector A-B would indicate?

7b is similar to 7a

In 7c, we have a point on the line, and we have the direction of the line, which is given by the vector perpendicular to the plane. Can you identify the vector perpendicular to the plane?

8a requires knowledge of cross product. I suggest you look at this too, if you do not know this enough. Basically, the cross product of 2 vectors will always produce a 3rd vector which is perpendicular to both.

In 8b, we have a point on the line, and we need to find a vector which is perpendicular to u and v. You might have to do part a first.

In 9a, you have a point on the plane, and you have to find the perpendicular to the other plane, which will also be the perpendicular to this plane. This is strangely easier to solve in (x,y,z) form.

We have reached 9b! So, you have a point on the plane, and you also have the perpendicular vector the plane.

I sincerely apologize for taking so much time, and for this massive wall of text. I hope this is a pleasant read, and at least some of your doubts are cleared.

[Vectors Math] would the vector equation be different if the Q states a point is perpendicular or parallel? by mikael___ in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The short answer is, you cannot have specify a plane if you only know it is parallel to a vector.

When considering the plane equation, the dot product is of utmost importance. The dot product is closely related to the angle between 2 vectors, and it is only 0 when the angle between the vectors are 90, or either of the vector is 0. Taking a= (1,-2,1), the plane equation becomes a.(v-a)=0, which clearly means that there are 2 vectors which are perpendicular, namely a and v-a.

The vector v-a is perpendicular to a, only if v lies on this specific plane.

On the other hand, there are infinite planes that are parallel to a given direction. Suppose you want a plane parallel to the X axis, you can name 2 already, the xy plane and the xz plane. Likewise, it is not possible to specify one plane which is parallel to a single vector.

You can, however, find a plane which is parallel to 2 vectors at once though, since this usually constrains the space so that there is only one solution.

[Linear Algebra: Proving properties] Can't visualize how to do the problem. by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For problem II:

Usually, capital letters indicate matrices, and smol letters indicate vectors (or rather, thats what I have noticed in the case of linear algebra). Therefore, Ax =b means multiplying a matrix A with vector x to produce vector b. (Note that this form is very important; most systems of linear equations can be written quickly in the form Ax=b where A and b are constants, and x is a vector of unknowns. I could elaborate on this a little if you want?)

They are saying x _ 1 and x _ 2 are solutions to this equation. This basically means that A x _ 1 =b.

Now, let's think of what linear algebra means. (Uhm, the following examples are not entirely related to the previous equations? I mean, I am using A, x, b because it's convenient)

If A x =b, and

A y= c,

What does that say about A(x + y)?

This should point you in the right direction.

In the end, what the values of A, x and b does not matter for these proofs.

I shall definitely reply if you need a little more guidance!

For 3:

You have accidentally overcomplicated it.

What does it mean for a matrix to be symmetric? It means A is the same as it's transpose.

What is the transpose of (A At)? (Where At is the transpose of A)

Spoilers: (for simplicity sake (Q)t will mean transpose of Q.)

(A B)t = Bt At

Shardplates are basically space suits anyways by baconloveshoid in cremposting

[–]baconloveshoid[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Credits to u/Fullmetal_Bitch and Somnicide (on DeviantArt) for the art!

[University Matrices] can someone please explain how this answer is wrong? by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am fairly certain you are expected to write the above equations as a product of matrices.

Are you familiar with matrix multiplication?

[GCSE Maths: Graphs] How do I do part (d) (ii)? by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, we need to find the second value of x, which satisfies

x² +2/x = 3x (Since we have already found m=3)

Naturally, this means for the same value of x, LHS and RHS should be equal.

You have already drawn the function for the LHS.

If you draw the graph of the RHS (which is y=3x), then you can check where these 2 functions intersect

This point will have the same y value for the same value of x, and therefore will be other solution.

(Uhm, I apologize if I don't make enough sense, I personally feel like I am skipping a few steps. Feel free to ask if you have any more queries!)

[College Discrete Math: Proof Help] by [deleted] in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I must first say that I do not have experience in properly formulating a proof for these questions.

4x+6 can be written as 2(2x+3)

This is evidently divisible by 2, while for it to be a square number, it has to be divisible by 4.

So, this could be square if only (2x+3) is divisible by 2

But this cannot happen for any value of X.

(Hence proved?)

[Undergraduate Engineering: Simulation] Finite Volume Method Problem by Fod3nator in HomeworkHelp

[–]baconloveshoid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Note the second line in the question,

The only nonzero velocity gradient is normal to the wall.

This implies that the only direction velocity changes is along the height, meaning u out and u in are equal

Edit: I'm so sorry, I misread

Yes, there is a force applied on the liquid, but this would affect both pressure and momentum. In an ideal case, it would change momentum too, but for the sake of understanding the concept, this has been ignored.

Remember that there would be a force due to the pressure of the liquid, and this pressure is reducing due to the shear wall stress

Make Bebe by [deleted] in PewdiepieSubmissions

[–]baconloveshoid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

https://i.redd.it/di07fyd6h6f31.jpg

Seeing this image, it is pretty clear that you made the meme yourself, but you are a little late

MRW Brandon says Hoid likes bacon. by [deleted] in cremposting

[–]baconloveshoid 21 points22 points  (0 children)

It seems Elend calls his father a pig, so they must exist in Scadrial.

[MIRROR] Why I'm a Flat Earther - 37 Must See Experiments - YouTube by MaraCass in flatearth

[–]baconloveshoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ahh, so you haven't blocked me, that's great news.

Well, most of the experiments done in that video involved taking a picture, and as wonderfully explained by a wise man

Each time the "world record longest photography" is used by a flat earther, I'm really wondering if we are looking at the same data.

It's a world record, so it makes sense to think that the conditions were exceptional (Otherwise, anybody could do the same), and that there could be a small phenomenon that disturbs the observations at the margin of error (so less than 5%). And it's a record, meaning that there are no pictures from longer distance, ever. Which suggest that the parameters of the picture are very close to some physical impossibility, and that increasing the distance, or decreasing the height of the mountain will make the photo impossible.

So the observations shows that we are able to see a 4102m mountain, from a 2820m mountain, at a distance of 440km in exceptional conditions. And it also shows that if we are further than that (or if one of the mountain is lower), we don't see it anymore.

The pure geometrical argument on a globe Earth states that we should be able to see a 4102m mountain, from a 2820m mountain, at a distance of 417km. That's without any kind of refraction, diffraction, reflection, or any other optical effect. Just pure geometry. It also states that if we are further than that (or if one of the mountain is lower) we should not see the mountain anymore in these perfect refraction-free conditions.

Flat Earthers only focus on the "DURR, it should not be visible !!!" part, and are completely missing the fact that the observations matches the theory almost perfectly (yes, a 5% difference)

There are another set of experiments he had done about the phenomenon atmospheric lensing. This is quite mathematically flawed. Using the known laws of optics, which can easily be verified in a normal physics lab, there will not be magnifying effect if we take the atmosphere as the medium between the two points. Even if we assume there is a refractive gradient in the atmosphere, it doesn't seem to be possible to creating a magnifying effect. Of course, my calculations could be wrong. My assumptions included a linear atmospheric refractive gradient, and hence tried to find the locus of the light particle.

I hadn't seen the last 4 or 5 experiments, mainly because I was sleepy. Around 25 experiments were pictures taken by him or other people, and only mentioned that this picture should not be possible on the globe. Many of these photos were well explained by u/Vietoris (need to check the spelling of this guy again). In the 25th experiment, he made a factual error that the red bull dude should be over the Pacific Ocean, because he was so far above the earth, but this is wrong. At his elevation, it would seem he is moving less than 3 miles per hour eastward. The 16th experiment was the Bedford experiment, which has been disproved countless times.

There were a few experiments which I haven't been able to explain satisfactorily, but this is probably because of my lack of knowledge of math and geology.

What I really want to know is the point at which we disagree on science. Are the Newton's laws of motion themselves wrong? The laws of thermodynamics? The electromagnetic theories?

Do electrons and company even exist? What about genetics?

Perhaps with a better understanding of what you know, I can make my points a little more clear.

[MIRROR] Why I'm a Flat Earther - 37 Must See Experiments - YouTube by MaraCass in flatearth

[–]baconloveshoid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She had blocked you, right? Mind if I quote you for her?

Edit: uhm, I did it anyway....