Vector Calculus Shmector Calculus

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 23 Jun 2005 13:00

I have a midterm exam tomorrow in a course I haven't started yet. Time to crack the books, I spose.

Not really looking for help, just venting.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 23 Jun 2005 14:13

you haven't started the COURSE yet???? or you haven't started studying for the exam?

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 23 Jun 2005 14:23

I'm a bit of a slack student...

You might also guess from the speed of my reply here that I'm at a computer now, instead of at the books. Good times.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 23 Jun 2005 14:31

I took Calculus once.

Showed up a grand total of 3 times to class, failed the course, got the F magically removed from my transcript (we were allowed up to 4 withdrawals) and never took it again.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 23 Jun 2005 14:52

That'd work for me, but I'm a math student, and I need to do the course.

At least I haven't been to class three times!

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 23 Jun 2005 14:56

I was an engineering student at the time.

Today I have a degree in Art!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I get the same pay as an engineer without all the math headaches.

WIN/WIN

professor · Post by **professor** » 23 Jun 2005 17:08

I know people are going to think I'm crazy but, Calculus is one of my most favorite subjects. I think it's awesome.

Calculus 2 is a little less exciting, but still pretty fun.

f(x) = footbag
g(x) = Lavers^2

z(x) = f(x) + g'(x) = 2fun!!!

Wow, I'm a geek....

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 23 Jun 2005 19:54

Some friends came by (I was at school when I was posting earlier) and were on their way to trivia night at the campus bar. Of course, I went with.

A team of 5 guys and 1 girl won femanist trivia night. Those were some beers well earned.

Still haven't started vector.

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 23 Jun 2005 20:15

? Seems like an odd forum to have the edit function disabled.

Anyways, Ben, when differentiating g(x) there, you're differentiating with respect to x, so Lavers is treated as a constant. So g'(x) is unfortunately zero, instead of the 2 Lavers which I assume you intended, allowing for footbag + 2 Lavers = 2 fun. (How often do you guys have 2fun? I always try, but I usually settle at just one.)

So don't worry - you're not that much of a geek.

professor · Post by **professor** » 23 Jun 2005 22:11

Actually, if you were doing implicit differentiation then it would be g'(x) = 2Lavers * dLavers (assuming Lavers is a variable), but I figured I'd try and make a cool answer like 2Fun (too fun) without geting too confusing.

It would be the same as if you had like:

g(x) = x + z
g'(x) = 1 * dx + 1 * dz

or more commonly:

y = x^2
dy = 2x * dx -----> dy/dx = 2x

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 24 Jun 2005 08:58

True enough, but still a little shakey. First, to be a little more precise, implicite differentiation defines Lavers as function of x, rather than as a 'variable', which is potentially confusing since we're dealing with a function of x, and can also lead to the mistaken assumption that you made.

Now, d(Lavers^2)/dx = 2 Lavers * d(Lavers)/dx is correct, but you can't say that this equals 2 Lavers without assuming that d(Lavers)/dx = 1, which is a big nono. If that were the case, then it would follow that Lavers = x + c , where c is some arbitrary constant. Somehow we've gained information about Lavers that simply wasn't there before, which is always a pretty good tip that something's off.

travismontoya · Post by **travismontoya** » 24 Jun 2005 23:24

Wow im graduating high school, and I have no idea what you 2 are talking about.... And yes in the HS im in you should be leaving with calculus (sp?) experience :S

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 30 Jun 2005 17:15

Lavers could also be an irrational value with Rod being the imaginary and x being the real part...
depends on definition...

Mathochist · Post by **Mathochist** » 05 Jul 2005 06:48

comastalker wrote:Lavers could also be an irrational value with Rod being the imaginary and x being the real part...

Don't you mean complex rather than irrational?

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 05 Jul 2005 12:28

oups...yes, I mean that

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 05 Jul 2005 12:28

things are kinda different in germany...

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 05 Jul 2005 12:37

Ooo! You just jogged my memory on a relatively obscure fact concerning mathmatical notation. Comastalker, what is the german word for the integers ({0, +/-1, +/-2, ...})? I recall hearing that it starts with a z, and that's why Z is used to denote them?

I dunno. It might have been a different language, or for that matter, a different set.

dil_strz · Post by **dil_strz** » 05 Jul 2005 14:10

Colin · Post by **Colin** » 05 Jul 2005 14:11

Woohoo! I knew something!

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 05 Jul 2005 14:23

yep, it's "Zahl";
the "N" is for "natürliche Zahl"
(I think it's the positive integers including 0)