You are not logged in.
Draw two lines, one pi/3 anticlockwise from the positive real axis, and one pi/3 clockwise. Shade in the middle.
Nice
I like the combinatorial proof of Fermat's Little Theorem, which considers the number of bracelets that can be made from 'p' beads of 'a' different colours.
ARGH. I misread the question. I thought the E=mc^2 sweat-shirt can be worn on all weekdays, regardless of the trousers.
Thanks mathsy.
Each day I choose at random between my brown trousers, my grey trousers and my expensive but fashionable designer jeans. Also in my wardrobe, I have a black silk tie, a rather smart brown and fawn polka-dot tie, my regimental tie, and an elegant powder-blue cravat which I was given for Christmas. With my brown or grey trousers, I choose ties (including the cravat) at random, except of course that I don't wear the cravat with the brown trousers or the polka-dot tie with the grey trousers. With the jeans, the choice depends on whether it is Sunday or one of the six weekdays: on weekdays, half the time I wear a cream-coloured sweat-shirt with E=mc^2 on the front and no tie, otherwise, and on Sundays (when naturally I always wear a tie), I just pick at random from my four ties.
a) This morning, I received through the post a compromising photograph of myself. I often receive such photographs and they are equally likely to have been taken on any day of the week. However in this particular photograph, I am wearing my black silk tie. Show that, on the basis of this information, the probability that the photograph was taken on Sunday is 11/68.
I get 3/14, and I can't see where I've gone wrong. Can anyone confirm the question's answer?
Thanks
(I appreciate it's long, but it's pretty straightforward and shouldn't take long)
I did this question quite recently.
It interested me to the extent that my bath overflowed whilst reading it.
My english teacher would shoot me if I handed anything like this in, though.
Well done
You've added a "b" at the end of "continuing" on the seventh page.
"but the poor reader is not prepared for this"
what a strange book.
Okay, thanks to both of you. Stupid book.
It's given that:
,a) Show that
, and hence find .b) The matrix C satisfies the equation
. Find p, q, r such that the image of under the transformation represented by isI've done the first bit, and got
, which I know is correct.For the second part, the quickest way I can think to do it is to find (B+I)^2 - BI, then find its inverse and postmultiply by (p,q,r). Is this the best way?
Thanks.
EDIT: Actually, using my above method, I end up with
, which would imply that doesn't exist?Daniel123 wrote:JaneFairfax wrote:The true figure is 43.5 hours.
I'd estimate that I'm on the internet for over double that per month, though much of it is productive.
Same. c(=
I probaly spend half here and half on ACC... and a quarter on UniCreatures. o_O
But I do remember a time when I would stay up for hours on Doom or Quake. Fond memories.
Things like that can be so addictive. I'm glad I got out of playing a certain game, which was eating up about 5 hours of my day (just in playing time, not including thinking about it )
The true figure is 43.5 hours.
I'd estimate that I'm on the internet for over double that per month, though much of it is productive.
Ignore. x = tanu.
I ended up having to do this by finding a reduction formula for
.Is there another way?
Thanks.
It isn't pi day in Britain.
m sagtynhds ikodsx un b
Hmm...
I doubt it will work as well as the article makes out.
Would be great though.
I find these harder than the other parts of "Countdown", as my brain focuses on the words already formed.
Thus we have proven that I am an idiot.
Thanks luca
I have a pair of simultaneous equations. The solution I have solves them by 'inspection'. Fair enough. Why can't I solve them by substitution? I can't get it to work.
The solution says "by inspection, A = - 2, B = 0". When I use substitution, I can't get these answers.
Thanks.
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/QuarticFormula.html
I feel almost as bad for the person who typed it up in LaTeX as the person who worked it out.
100 floor tower. 2 identical plates. How many times do we have to drop a plate to find the minimum floor from which dropping a plate will cause it to smash?
Are you arguing that such a ratio cannot exist?
Yes I do dude. Seeing is not believing. Please read my post in "This is cool" and you will find my argument that the existence of a circle in not testified or verified by science discoveries so far. And read my recent disproof that infinite decimals has its consistency problem.
I think you're misunderstanding what mathematics is. Science has absolutely no relevance to maths; the concepts we deal with in maths are all hyopthetical. Of course a perfect circle could not exist in our universe, but it does exist in the hypothetical, mathematical universe that we have created, and therefore so does pi.