Yea im good, thanks. I always thought that's one and the same, all motion is relative after all. I don't understand half of what you said, but I guess that's because I'm not there yet.
So like alf staying in place and the starting line moving back. Interesting, I dont even know how to begin...
Oh I got it, 1320/60 is 22 as well, I saw the different y intercepts and panicked I forgot in this reference frame there is no +2.
Anyway, whats the difference between translating and changing reference frames?
I wasn't aware there is a difference between translating and changing reference frames, what is the difference?
It took me like 45 minutes to make those graphs in paint with my mouse. I dont see the utility in making a to scale graphs when these are sufficient to to demonstrate the concept at...
The graphs are not to scale, just meant to show in general the concept.
Im assuming you are referring to the first graph since I posted 4 of them? And the graph shows that at T=0 alf is 2(660) meters ahed, as claimed in the problem statement. They are just lines, they can go on forever, im sure...
I got no problem with the arithmetic and solving it, finding the intersection of 2 lines is nothing, but I decided to play around with the problem and explore it more and ran into a strange problem, why can't I shift the X axis up? Let me explain.
The problem can be set up from 2 different...
But that's just the polynomial remainder theorem , which involves polynomial division, horners method just reformats a polynomial into a nest of linear terms. In that section it says "Using Horner's method, divide out ( x − z...
I know what synthetic division is and what its point is, its an algorithm that allows you to do polynomial division in a more compact way, by not having to write the variable and its powers. Its how it relates to Horner's method, the reformatting a polynomial into a recursive nest of linier...
So I was trying to understand Horner's method. I understand that you can take a polynomial and factor out the x's and re write it as multiple linear functions recursively plugged into each other and that this makes evaluating a polynomial easier because you just evaluate a linear function...
I think I get it, although the Newton Raphson method may not be able to be written as a continued fraction what I am thinking of nesting in general, since in the place of x_0 you can plug in the formula with x0-1 and repeat. You can't solve (x^2)-5=0 as a continued fraction tho, i tried (x*x)=5...
I overlooked your original post because my knowledge of sequences and series is poor. Am I going to have to put my investigation of continued fractions on hold till I learn that?
But from the looks of it, it can be done. I stopped the fraction at 5 iterations and computed it and got a very...
I know how to turn the mixed number into the continued fraction. I am talking about going the other way. This is the only way I can see a continued fraction be useful for computing something. Let's say you don't know the value is ##\frac{157}{68}## and that is what you are trying to find. Some...
It makes a bit more sense to me now as just a weird way of representing a mixed number,
I can imagine it being useful in calculating numbers if you can get the whole numbers in the denominator nest you can write out the repeated fraction and simplify it to get the number.
But, how then do you...
That sounds vaguely similar to a certain method for computing logs,
https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-calculate-the-logarithms-by-hand-without-using-any-calculator
The first reply.
But I do not understand your response. What context would you compute that certain number? Trying to find a...
They are mysterious to me, they do not make any intuitive sense. What is the context for them? I found this website. http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/cfINTRO.html
It tries to show the history of how they were discovered geometrically. So you start off with a...