Re: Smarter Scots
- From: "Chicmac" <charles.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 May 2006 11:55:51 -0700
Custos Custodum wrote:
On 9 May 2006 04:10:05 -0700, "Chicmac"
<charles.mcgregor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chicmac wrote:
Chicmac wrote:
Custos Custodum wrote:
On Wed, 3 May 2006 22:11:36 +1200, "Mad Prof" <mad@xxxxxxx> wrote:Actually it can very simply, since the question does not specify
I don't think it can be solved algebraically - you have to resort to
"uNkulunkulu" <izulu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:k0Z5g.63407$wl.19314@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
news:e39cv8$j2h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Mad Prof" <mad@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
ofAre Scots any smarter than other nations? We often laugh at the Yanks
who's
knowledge of geography is sadly lacking but if you went on the streets
Aska
major Scottish town and asked a person at random to point to say 'South
Dakota' or Luxemberg on a map would they be able to do it? I doubt it.
bethem to solve a simple algebra problem
sin(x)+x^2=0
As this equation ha a trigonometric function (sin(x)) it has to be a
trigonometric problem and not algebraic. At first glance it is obvious to
those with even a smattering of high school maths that the answer can not
zero unless x=0Fraid not - that is the trivial solution - there is also another solution.
You can see this by drawing the graph of sin(x) and x^2 and looking at the
intersections.(one of which is your solution at x=0) But other than a
graphical solution how to find x?
numerical methods such as successive approximation or truncated
series. Alternatively you can learn to use a programmable calculator
and get the result x = -0.8767 to 4 decimal places.
radians, (which you have understandably assumed).
So if I choose to use degrees.
Then it can immediately be seen that the solution in that instance must
be <<1.
This allows us to make the small angle approximation, where sin x = x
where x is in radians and x<<1 radian.
there are 57.3 degrees in a radian, therefore if we are working in
degrees with a very small angle then the approximation means that
x/57.3 = x^2
so x=1/57.3 = 0.000345 approx.
Chic
Oops, I forgot the neg. sign.
x/57.3 =-x^2
x= -0.000345
Jings I must have been pissed when I did this.
Having used some mathematical lateral thinking in switching from
radians to degrees in order to obviate the need for a calculator, i.e
trying to be clever, I then go on to demonstrate my intrinsic need of a
calculator in order to do simple arithmetic.
The answer should have been 1/57.3 = 0.01745 degrees.
Also I was talking pish with x as a negative. Not allowed so the
transposition needs to be
x^2 = -sin x
Classic case of concentrating on the clever bit and ignoring the
simple.
Indeed. I think you're barking up the wrong tree (or should that be
log?) with this approach, Chic. Sin(x) = x is a useful approximation
to make when performing calculations using known values, but it is
fraught with dangers when solving equations involving unknowns.
Since |sin(x)| <= 1 for all real x (complex x hurts my brain too
much), regardless of units chosen, we can also state that, for this
problem, |x| <= 1. It doesn't necessarily follow that x << 1. If you
deliberately choose x very small to allow your approximation, you get
x + x^2 = 0. Factoring gives x(1+x) = 0, so x = 0 or -1. Now x = 0 is
the trivial solution. The other solution, x = -1, contains an
indeterminate error because of the error inherent in the original
approximation. Remember that sin(x) = x isn't just an approximation;
it's a limit. i.e. sin(x) --> x as x --> 0. Ignoring arithmetical
errors, the answer you got was basically the x = 0 solution (because
you assumed it to be very nearly so at the outset), offset by the
error introduced by your approximation.
[ObScot: Just in case anyone is wondering what this has to do with
Scottish culture, I give you:
The Maclaurin Series for sin(x):
sin(x) = x - (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7! + ... ]
x = - 0.01745
Shove it into your equation:-
sin(x)+x^2=0
and you get
- 0.0003045 + 0.0003045 = 0
And nope it is not just an error due to approximation.
Gotta go out so can't go into any more detail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: Chicmac
- Re: Smarter Scots
- References:
- Smarter Scots
- From: Mad Prof
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: uNkulunkulu
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: Mad Prof
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: Chicmac
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: Chicmac
- Re: Smarter Scots
- From: Chicmac
- Smarter Scots
- Prev by Date: Re: Bin Ladiin and Bonnie Prince Charlie
- Next by Date: Re: Bin Ladiin and Bonnie Prince Charlie
- Previous by thread: Re: Smarter Scots
- Next by thread: Re: Smarter Scots
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|