>>7468
What three Quantities can vary when calculating the moment magnitude. Don't think the answer can be figured out from the question.

What class is this for?

>>7458
3 halfs dude, is like... an ounce and a half dude

>>7463
Na man, she found a way to fit three halfs into a whole. Lol

This has been beat to death, but yes with an infinite amount of ancestors then it is possible to approach the limit of exactly 1/3 ethnicity, but since the amount of ancestors we have is in fact finite you can't reach it exactly.

Also (1/3) as said is 100% absolutely rational. It happens to be non-terminating in it's decimal representation, but it is rational. In the example of running 1/3 a mile, just because you will inevitably run past or stop short of exactly 1/3 doesn't mean that the point does not physically exist. In fact by definition of a continuous line segment there must be a point = 1/3 the distance of said segment.

>>7465
this

>>7465
Also...
I like to think of the physical representation of fractions even non terminating in terms of folding paper or some other mechanical representation. For 1/3 you could take a piece of paper and if you can perfectly fold it in a tri-fold then each section will be exactly 1/3. An analogous representation for pi would be, as far as I know , impossible.
You could try to perfectly sketch a circle with a definite radius, but then to obtain pi you would have to perfectly measure the circumference which is impossible, since it would be irrational (2 r pi), or reverse that pi having a definite circumference with an irrational radius, either way your fucked. Non terminating, non repeating = impossible to measure / represent exactly in the physical world = irrational.

i guess u would make derivatives equal to eachother and solve for x? that would be the point to use? fuck i dunno man im drunk

construct an equation for the tangent line at arbitrary point (c, a(c))
and another at (d, b(d))

using point-slope form, you'd get
(y-a(c)) / (x-c) = a'(c)
(y-b(d)) / (x-d) = b'(d)
solve for y

now you want those two equations to be describing the same line, so equate coefficients to get two equations in two unknowns, c and d.
Solve for c and d.

c is the x-coordinate where the common tangent intersects a(x), and d is the x-coordinate where the common tangent intersects b(x).

there's also the formula y = mx + b but I'm not really sure if you need it for this exercise, I tried substituting values in that equation too and got nowt.
Now I remember why I hate maths
nobump

deeeerp, I looked it up. It was using the y = mx + b to find b. I just didn't know that b is what I was trying to get and I wasn't supposed to substitute that with anything. Fuck I'm an idiot.

you could also use awesome calculus. expanding the binomial, you get x^2 -4x+4 + y^2 = 10. Differentiating, you get 2x - 4 + 2y(dy/dx) = 0 . than, you reqwrite to geth (dy/dx) = (4-2x) / (2y) . so the slope of the tangent line at (1,-3) = (4-(2))/(2*-3) = -2/6 = -1/3 . so than the equation is y = (-1/3)x + b . we have point (1,-3) so -3 = (-1/3)(1) + b. So b= -8/3 and y = (-1/3) x -8/3

>>7441
Yeah, that's how I would have done it,.

Are you asking us if 472 is more than 463.97?
The answer is yes.
Is there anything else we can help you with?

lol

actually i was asking whether any of my short hand was incorrect; the different standards had me wondering

God damn it you are SO fucking clever sophie :DDDDD<3333<33ad lekvwevwrvw

>>7432

ml/ml= unitless
ml/ml/per dose = per dose

http://dxm.darkridge.com/calc.html go back to /psy/ or /dis/

your not going to reach 4th with that little. 700 - 800mg is a 4th plateau dose. you will reach low 3rd with that dose

>>7407

1. Take a length you measured.
   
2. Multiply it by the golden ratio.
   
3. See if it comes close to another length you measure.
   
4. ???
   
5. Turn it in.

What you can do is calculate the Fibonacci sequence and calculate approximations successive for the golden ratio using the ratio of two successive numbers. (You have to stop at some value the numbers get large pretty quickly)

Then take all possible ratios between the numbers you measured. (Write down a table)
Then divide those ratios with the approximations of the golden ratio. Mark the number closet to one.
The further down the list the mark is the closer you are to the golden ratio.

DICKS EVERYWHERE

DICKS EVERYWHERE

>>7407
>>7407

nigga you is dumb

You're having trouble with the proof because one does not exist.
Consider: f(x) = x/2, when x is even, f(x) = 0 when x is odd.

i learned it by actually reading my textbook.

not trying to sound sarcastic or something because that's what i did.

one story.

It looks like an interesting challenge, but I'm not up to it. Anyone else? I'll award internets to see it solved!

>>7395
Thia is really sweet! Well, I'm going to gut out the inside of the house and fix the exterior up. The attic is rather well kept and I plan to use that for my office and studio space. The place has a of history too, which makes it even groovier. I'm just trying to estimate approx measurements. 20 ft sounds close enough...

Just use the measurement of the license plate as a reference scale, the guesstimate.

I tried to define the major faces of the house in a vector image software, using vanishing points to align the lines. Using this I could find a ratio for the highest point relative to the top of the window frames. If they're aligned with the top of the door, and the door is 6 ft 8 inches as Molly said, I get 19 feet for the highest point, not counting the foundation.

I don't think my answer is necessarily more accurate, but two independently determined and closely corresponding answers are better than one, right?

You aught to be more specific, you mean the 50 by 80 cm faces on the bottom and the top? Area is just one side times the other, so each is 50*80 square cm or 0.8*0.5 square metres.

If you mean the area of the squares/rectangles bound by dotted edges, it'd rely to some degree on guesswork.

>>7411
I mean the areas bound by the dotted edges. Are you positive that it needs guesswork (this was taken from what can be compared to an SAT or ACT in the states, basically final exam sheet) ?

Well, there could be measurement done, but there's no absolute mathematical answer; seems like a silly question to me, or at least not something I'd expect in high school.

Basically you'd be relying on the use of ruler, and that's about all they'd be testing.
Just use the edge lines of the top of the cuboid as guides and measure the edges themselves along with the total distances between the opposite dotted lines, then use the numbers they've given you to find the scale of the picture.

If you've recently been learning about inaccuracies of measurement, it's possible what they're actually looking for is understanding, manipulation and possibly minimisation of said inaccuracies.
If you don't know what I'm talking about then it probably isn't that, but it would make much more sense for it to be in a high school level test..

There is not enough information to work out the areas of the two dotted rectangles at the top and bottom. The only way to do it would be to do as James suggests, but checking the dimensions givens shows that the image is not to scale so that wouldn't work either.

My attempt.

DICKS EVERYWHERE

Hmm. So (going by your working) I had the correct w(y) function and parameters, and the problem was that I didn't realise the first y in the formula was being treated as a variable rather than the stated constant/maximum depth... urg.

Not saying it was badly worded, more like I was stupid. <.<
It was a y in an integrand with respect to y. How did I miss that. xD

I'll go back over it and see if I get the same answer as you this time, thanks.

Difference of 2/3, I'll put it down to rounding.

It can be done in one step from where you are.
But since using the Lambert W function is so different from most solving methods, I'll go easy on you and pull it apart.

First look at the x coefficients, what would have to be done to both sides for them to equal?
To make the power the same you'd have multiply in e^(x ln2 +3x), but since that would put x terms on the other side of the equation it's not likely to do you any good.
To get the x coefficient in the e multiplier the same you'd just have to multiply both sides by -1/3 ln2.
Now the power and multiplier only differ by a constant, so it's easy to resolve via the power ie. multiplying in e^(1/3 ln2).

In the end all it took was a modification by one term: -1/3 ln2 e^(1/3 ln2)

>>7394
i feel really really stupid. thank you, really. <3 (:

what class/subject is this for?

>>7397
oh, none tbh
i'm in college, taking precalculus (lol) and in my boredom/experimentation, i came across equations which i couldn't solve with basic logarithms
i did some reading and learned about the lambert W function and a bit of how to use it, but got stuck on this one equation when practicing. i still don't fully understand it.. but at least i can kind of solve them.

in my opinion, they're really nice equations because they teach how to manipulate the coefficients and exponents, instead of just shifting/adding/dividing/etc.ing things from the sides to isolate your variable.

finished, if anyone cared