Civilization Fanatics' Forums Let's discuss Mathematics

 Apr 02, 2012, 11:55 PM #1181 Atticus Horselover Fat     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 3,050 First you calculate the multiplicator: 2.61 years/month= 952 days/30 days= 31.8 (about) So one real day corresponds to 31.8 days in his life. Then 116 days is 31.8 * 116 ... ans so on. BTW, doesn't "rewind" mean that his life is going backwards? __________________ Be-beep, be-beep, yeah!
Apr 03, 2012, 12:42 AM   #1182
PlutonianEmpire
Inb4 everything!

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MinneSNOWta
Posts: 4,450
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atticus First you calculate the multiplicator: 2.61 years/month= 952 days/30 days= 31.8 (about) So one real day corresponds to 31.8 days in his life. Then 116 days is 31.8 * 116 ... ans so on. BTW, doesn't "rewind" mean that his life is going backwards?
Yes. But his body ages normally. Meaning, that the rewind is enough so that December 21st, 2012 is the equivalant of him being born, indicating he will die by whatever the voodoo witch wanted him to die by.

I figured out that "31.8 * 116" should actually be "116 / 31.8", which would be about 3.6478 days.

Anyways, thanks.
__________________
Inb4 people roll their eyes at me and/or give me flak for my comment/complaint/joke.
Inb4 people completely ignore me instead.
Inb4 the "Oh You!" image response.
Inb4 I forget an inb4 that I knew I should have remembered to inb4.

 Apr 30, 2012, 12:16 AM #1183 PlutonianEmpire Inb4 everything!     Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MinneSNOWta Posts: 4,450 Google has failed me. Wolfram Alpha has failed me. EVERYTHING has failed me. I've been looking for the past bleeping hour for an easy calculation for the roche limits of celestial objects, to no avail, and at this point, I am way beyond pissed off. So I've come here as a last resort. My request is simple. Can someone translate the formula for celestial roche limits into a single line of code-ish text, with info on which numbers go where? (Preferrably I'd be able to copypasta into Win 7's Calculator.) The images on Wikipedia (for example) containing the formulas are too confusing. Example (the formula for calculating the semi-major axis of a given planet): Code: `semi-major axis = (perihelion + aphelion) /2` __________________ Inb4 people roll their eyes at me and/or give me flak for my comment/complaint/joke. Inb4 people completely ignore me instead. Inb4 the "Oh You!" image response. Inb4 I forget an inb4 that I knew I should have remembered to inb4.
 Apr 30, 2012, 09:29 AM #1184 LulThyme King   Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 619 What exactly is confusing about the Wikipedia formulas? To be really honest, I do think everybody's time would be spent more productively if you tried to learn how to parse such formulas. Especially in the long run, you wouldn't have to ask again for every new formula (teach a man to fish and all that..) . As far as I can tell, the formulas on Wikipedia only have the four basic operations plus exponentiation, so you only need to understand a bit of notation and order of operations, it should not be too hard and you can come and ask here for help I suppose.
 Apr 30, 2012, 09:39 AM #1185 Mise isle of lucy     Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 26,103 I looked on wiki for "Roche limit" and here is the first formula in that page: Which is d = R*(2*pM/pm)^(1/3) if you're typing it into a computer. (I'm using p's instead of rho's.) __________________ Come to fiftychat! It's where downtown hangs out!
Apr 30, 2012, 12:39 PM   #1186
Chairman Meow
Class IV

Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: In an optical fiber
Posts: 1,301
Quote:
 Originally Posted by meromorph Mathematica stores symbolic expressions as nested functions. For example, 1 + 2 Pi would be stored as: Plus[1, Times[2, Pi]] Expressions with rational powers like 4 + 2 sqrt(5) expand to: Plus[1, Times[2, Power[5, Rational[1,2] ] ] ] Nested functions can be visualized as trees, f[a,b] becomes a parent node f with two child nodes a and b. Interesting. In mathematica, constants like Pi are kept as symbols but have an attribute marking that they can be evaluated to a number, and the tests 4 > Pi and 4.0 > Pi both return true. Mathematica uses dynamic typing, so if an expression combines symbols and floating-point like 2 + 2.0 then the result is output as floating-point 4.0 instead of returning a type error.
One thing you have to watch out for in Mathematica if you use the Units and PhysicalConstants packages is that Mathematica treats pi as a unit rather than part of the number. This means if you try to strip the units off a physical constant by taking the first part (e.g. VacuumPermittivity[[1]]), then you can end up with a number that's off by a factor of pi. I've been bitten by that bug in the past...

May 01, 2012, 04:07 PM   #1187
peter grimes
...

Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queens, New York
Posts: 11,497
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mise I looked on wiki for "Roche limit" and here is the first formula in that page: Which is d = R*(2*pM/pm)^(1/3) if you're typing it into a computer. (I'm using p's instead of rho's.)
I don't have any mathematical proficiency (nor do I know anything about windows 7 calculator's interface) yet I was able to enter this formula into a couple different calculators on my phone with results congruent to 8 significant figures.

I used the same values for a variable in each iteration.

Maybe W7Calc has some quirks that are really strange??

 May 07, 2012, 01:00 AM #1188 Lord Chambers King     Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 985 Images: 2 For those of you who know a few quantitative methods and statistics, where did you learn? I'm curious if anyone is partially self-taught and what resources he or she used. Any websites or podcasts you use to enhance your understanding?
 May 07, 2012, 05:14 AM #1189 Mise isle of lucy     Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 26,103 "Numerical Recipes" is good to have as a reference, but most of the stuff I learnt was at university or on the job. __________________ Come to fiftychat! It's where downtown hangs out!
May 08, 2012, 04:11 AM   #1190
sanabas
Psycho Bunny

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 4,039
Images: 3
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lord Chambers For those of you who know a few quantitative methods and statistics, where did you learn? I'm curious if anyone is partially self-taught and what resources he or she used. Any websites or podcasts you use to enhance your understanding?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ plus a few texts I have lying around, plus whatever else google might send me to. Or in some cases, housemates were struggling with their uni stuff, so I grabbed their textbooks/lecture notes, and taught myself enough of what they were doing to be able to help them. Plus there's always the fun option of deriving formulae & things yourself.

 May 22, 2012, 04:48 AM #1191 Atticus Horselover Fat     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 3,050 Does anyone here know any proof other than the four colour problem, which has used computers as an aid? __________________ Be-beep, be-beep, yeah!
 May 22, 2012, 07:39 AM #1192 sanabas Psycho Bunny     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 4,039 Images: 3 I know of proofs of why something was wrong that used computers to find a counter-example. Think it's earlier in this thread somewhere. Do they count for what you're looking for?
May 22, 2012, 03:40 PM   #1193
uppi
Deity

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,387
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Atticus Does anyone here know any proof other than the four colour problem, which has used computers as an aid?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compute...puter_programs

 May 23, 2012, 12:09 AM #1194 Atticus Horselover Fat     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 3,050 Thanks Uppi! And Sanabas, I'm not sure, first I thought definitely no, whereas I thought about finding simple counterexample. Then I thought to clarify that counterexamples suffice if they aren't produced by mere raw power. Then I thought everything done by computer is produced by that. Then I thought that raw power can at least in theory add up to artificial reasoning. The thing is, I read an article by John Horgan, a science reporter, who said that computers are increasingly used in maths to prove theorems. I think that's at least misleading, since they aren't used significantly (that I would know). Horgan has also some trouble with himself because he goes at the AI too in the same article, and so he claims that maths is done more and more by computers and that there are and probably will not be AIs that are any good. __________________ Be-beep, be-beep, yeah!
 May 23, 2012, 02:30 AM #1195 PlutonianEmpire Inb4 everything!     Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MinneSNOWta Posts: 4,450 How do I calculate the Semi-Major Axis of an orbit from just the perihelion, and eccentricity? __________________ Inb4 people roll their eyes at me and/or give me flak for my comment/complaint/joke. Inb4 people completely ignore me instead. Inb4 the "Oh You!" image response. Inb4 I forget an inb4 that I knew I should have remembered to inb4.
 May 23, 2012, 03:35 PM #1196 Petek Alpha Centaurian     Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Berkeley, Calif., USA Posts: 2,112 Atticus, Perhaps Horgan was referring to automated theorem proving. __________________ A dog, a pant, a panic in a Patna pagoda.
May 24, 2012, 05:58 PM   #1197
Leoreth
Knight of Time

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Land of Heat and Clockwork
Posts: 17,485
Quote:
 Originally Posted by PlutonianEmpire How do I calculate the Semi-Major Axis of an orbit from just the perihelion, and eccentricity?
If a is the semi-major axis, e the eccentricity and p the perihelion, and f the distance from the center of the ellipse to one of its foci (i.e. the gravitational center of the orbit), then p = f+a.

The equation for eccentricity is e = f/a <=> f = e*a.

Plugging that into the perihelion term gives p = e*a+a <=> p = (e+1)*a <=> a = p/(e+1).
__________________
"Sometimes to make the harder things simple, first you have to make the simple things harder." - Vi Hart

Play RFC Dawn of Civilization version 1.11 and relive the history of the world!
Develop the New World as the Aztecs and Incas, or reclaim it from the Europeans as Mexico, Brazil and Gran Colombia.

 Jun 05, 2012, 02:14 PM #1198 del62 Deity   Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Northern England Posts: 2,080 Does anyone know of any web-sites that will give a good understanding of fourier theory. __________________ “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” George Orwell
 Jun 12, 2012, 04:27 AM #1199 Atticus Horselover Fat     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Helsinki, Finland Posts: 3,050 I don't know anything in the web, but found once the start of this book enlightening. It's not probably worth of the 85 dollars they are selling it for, but if you can borrow it or something like that, read the introduction. I didn't read the book more though. A sad thing about it was that they used Riemann integral rather than Lebesgue, which makes things a bit harder. I suppose (but am not sure) that Lebesgue integral is a must if you're going to study Fourier analysis from the maths point of view. Physics and such do probably with less. __________________ Be-beep, be-beep, yeah!
 Jun 12, 2012, 06:15 AM #1200 dutchfire -     Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 11,545 I used the same book as Atticus. I think it's a useful book for a theoretical mathematician but not so much for an applied mathematician/physicist. I don't know if there are any particularly good books for physicists, most of them learn Fourier theory from their quantum mechanics courses. __________________ "If only the Netherlands were in Hell! At least it's warm and generally dry there." David Černư in the statement accompanying Entropa

 Bookmarks

 Tags mathematics

 Civilization Fanatics' Forums > Let's discuss Mathematics