You are not logged in.
Nice solution rzaidan, but I think the step of multiplying by (secx + tanx) requires a big leap of faith whereas u-substitution does not.
And another one:
So could this problem be solved theoretically?
Just wondering, are there number theory problems for which there is a proof that a solution cannot be reached without brute force?
Congratulations glenn!
Have you been to vcenotes.com? There's a great community there to discuss vce!
Ah ok, thanks ricky
But who's to say
is 'more' positive than ?After all, aren't they off the real-number line?
So does
not ?I don't see how it makes a difference? If you multiply the right equation by -1 you still get
,thx ricky
Let
Show that
is a logarithm ofThis issue came to my attention while doing a practice exam paper. The question is to find
. The solution goes:So I tried extending this to real roots:
Suppose
for some number a.I always learnt in school that
implies the positive root though! What is correct??Also, is the story the same for
?For centuries it has been undefined, but today...
...I define it to be equal to be 42!!!
Thankyou anyway, it is always good to see more approaches to a problem
LOL oh no
I was meant to do
!!aaaah thanks ricky
If a = 2-v and v = 0 when x = 0, find x when v = -2
thanks!!
I'm wondering how it is equivalent though, I mean like...
If you had
, and you wanted to find x in terms of t, you could solve for x with soroban's answer, but how can you do it with bobbym's?thanks bobbym!
Thanks luca!
Can someone explain how
simplifies tothankyou
also another question
how do you find
!Tom Lehrer is fantastic!
Thanks, maybe the book was wrong
A particle moves in a line with velocity
given by . The object starts from the origin. Find the average acceleration over the third second.The answer is but no matter what I try I can't seem to get it.
If t=0 to t=1 is the first second, then t = 2 to t = 3 should be the third second, but I've found v(3)-v(2) and it's still not right!
Yeah, that's exactly what I get. Even raising the temperature by 1 degree would require
nukes, which is ridiculous, seeing as we only have 23000 nukes in the world.The nuclear winter would be more catastrophic however, it could plunge the whole world into a possible ice age. Humans would likely not survive. But an ice age has occurred before, and those lucky enough to be adapted to it will survive. In particular, I've heard that co.ckroaches are specially adapted to survive nuclear fallout.
I don't know which species would survive, but an ice age has occurred before, and obviously certain species did survive.
I think suicidal bombardment is the 'best' way humans could try to eradicate another species. They would succeed with most species, but not with all.