Math Is Fun Forum

Shouldnt the answer to d just be a*p?

Thanks, thats exactly what I was after, but would you mind explaining the process to me?

You start with the MSB (Most significant bit) of the divisor aligned with the second MSB of the dividend, why not the first?

Then I was expecting an XOR operation, since the arithmetic is modular in the finite field GF(2), so addition is equivalent to subtraction is equivalent to a bitwise XOR operation between digits of the operands, meaning there should no be carry or borrow bits in the calculation. However, the first stage of the division, you have:

1011011010
 11011
 ------
 100101

Shouldnt the result be 101101, not 100101, since 1XOR0=0XOR1=1, and 1XOR1=0XOR0=0.

Well most the tables I have looked at actually do define the inverse transforms in terms of the unit step, and the unit impulse (Kronecker delta) functions, which is expected, since it represents causality of the discrete time systems I'm working with. I think I mayu need partial fractions...

Thanks, I know I need to use inverse z transform, but I can't find anything in a z-transform table, so I'm not sure how to do it.

Hi bobbym, actually as I said there are two approximate roots of the equation, given the constraint |a|<1. They are:

But only,

satisfies the constraint |a|<1, since,

Also, I know that these are only approximations, and for my engineering design application, they are extremely accurate approximations, and will suffice for the limited precision required.

I'm also familiar with iterative methods such as Newton or Newton-Raphson in numerical analysis, and am a proficient programmer, and would be able to implement such algorithms myself....Excel could also be used. I was just interested to see if the problem had a solution using algebraic manipulation, since my maths is a bit rusty in some areas, and this one really stumped me. I appreciate the offer though, but the solution is good enough for my problem.

Thank you

Thanks, it seems this partial fraction doesn't make anything simpler at all, but I found another way to solve my problem. I do however have another partial fraction:

I thought something like this was written as:

I haven't seen partial fractions written with a constant as a term in its own right (As the term 'A' is in your example) before, and also thought the form Bx+C in a numerator was only used for squared variables within the parenthesis such as:

Is the form I have provided not correct?

Anyone?

Thanks, do you have any idea about this?..

Thanks, but I don't understand the method. Doesn't a function of three variables such as:

describe a surface in

Then the gradient of f,

Thanks, I had seen the cross product used in 3D examples, and know this isn't defined in 2D, but I see the formula you've given is that of a determinant. Basically we're finding the component of the force vector acting perpendicuar to the position vector of the point right? (assuming the moment is about the origin)