Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.free.newsservers > #48259
| From | Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> |
|---|---|
| References | (2 earlier) <0bfde95d15b181216e531ac8e40e9b2f@dizum.com> <p5d1hbpiu6c0iirnv88cfol2qeuco8lemu@4ax.com> <dncv8iF8ojjU1@mid.individual.net> <1d9aa9e18defb410fa7c9e3c0db0005d@dizum.com> <dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net> |
| Subject | Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative |
| Message-ID | <2016c0381b63613e1e8c616ea2224e2a@dizum.com> (permalink) |
| Date | 2016-04-17 07:35 +0200 |
| Newsgroups | alt.free.newsservers, alt.usenet.kooks, sci.physics |
| Organization | dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
vallor, in <news:dnf1lrFddd5U22@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 07:38:38 +0200, Friendly Neighborhood
> Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
>>> I'm glad you caught that, I totally missed it. (Got just a couple of
>>> paragraphs into his post, then ennui set in.)
>> You caught Shiny Tinfoil Spankard wondering why x^2 and 2x aren't
>> co-functions?
> He never did that.
Sure he did.
"The derivative of x^2 is 2x. Does that make them also co-functions?"
>> That's because he's a confused little kooktard.
> Looks more like you are _very_ confused.
Not really, you're just shifting the goal-posts and being ambiguous in
your diversionary bleating. LOL
>>> Let's see if we can generate a koan-like moment for the budding
>>> mathematician:
>>>
>>> d/dx( 2x^3 + 69 ) = 6x^2
>> d/dx(2x^3 + 69) = (3*(2x)^2 + 0) = 6x^2 = 2*6x = 12x
Correct. LOL
>> Did you forget to simplify? LOL
> That isn't "simplifying" you did, you took the second derivative.
>
> No where in my post did I try to muddy the waters with second
> derivatives, I was talking about the basics. Obviously.
You didn't specify what your goal was.
> So you get an "A" for effort, but I'm going to have to mark you down for
> being over-enthusiastic with the process.
Awww, he thinks he's a teacher... and he can't even read a graph. LOL
>>> d/dx( 4x^2 ) = 8x
>> d/dx(4x^2) = 2*(4x) = 8x
Correct.
>>> d/dx( 4x^2 + 7x + 3 ) = 8x + 7
>> d/dx(4x^2 + 7x +3) = (2*(4x) + 7 + 0) = 8x + 7
Correct.
>> You should try teaching Shiny Tinfoil Spankard. LOL
> I'll let you in on an open secret:
>
> He knows more about this than you do.
Really? Is that why he denied that a sinusoid is a transform of a
circle; denied that wave interference and superposition are the same
thing; denied that sin^2 is a sinusoid; claimed that "within 10%
error" equaled "10% error"; didn't know what LaTeX notation was or
that there's a formula in that plain text LaTeX notation (he thought
it was a script. LOL!); didn't know what the "co" in cosine means nor
what co-functionality was nor the difference between inverse
operations and cofunctionality; didn't know that finding the
anti-derivative is the same as finding the integral; denied that stock
trading requires mathematical derivatives; claimed that mathematical
derivatives as used in stock trading are stock options; demonstrated
that he didn't know what the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus is;
demonstrated that he didn't know that the derivative of a constant is
always equal to zero; claimed that no math was being done unless an
equal sign was in there somewhere; confused a formula and an equation;
and completely fucked up the definitions of the first, second and
third derivatives? Amongst many other of his hilarious fuckups. LOL
>>> You can't fake knowing math.
>> Says the guy who fucked up above. LOL
> Actually, no, it was you who over-enthusiastically took the second
> derivative when all we were dealing with were first derivatives.
Ok, so I went over your head. I'm marking you down for that. LOL
>>> Prediction: the response to this will be "jess trollin'".
>> Wrong. Again. LOL
> Except, see below...
Still wrong. Again. LOL
>>> And I hesitate to give a sensible answer regarding 2x for a specific
>>> point x, because _that_ does use trigonometry, but not for the reasons
>>> you think. for r = sin(theta), r is the ratio, and theta is the angle.
>>> But let's take that example of x^2 for x = 5 (picked out of thin air)
>>> and see what we get:
>>> x = 5 f(x) = (5)^2 = 25 d/dx( f(x) ) = 2x; for x = 5, this is 10
>>>
>>> So we know a few things about that point on the curve:
>>> It is at (x,y) = (5,25).
>>> The slope of the point tangent to the curve at (5,25) is 10.
>>>
>>> What is the slope? It is the ratio of y/x.
>>> So the "angle of 2x" for x=5 would be solved by using the trigonometric
>>> function that solves for y/x ratios -- arctan. (Remember tangents?
>>> This is a song about tangents.)
>> But we're not talking about the slope of x^2,
> Actually, we are. In purely mathematical terms, that's what a derivative
> is _for_.
And what's the derivative of x^2? Oh, it's 2x. So yet again I'm
correct. LOL
> Let's take the case of when you were dropped on your head as a child.
Fanfic. LOL
> The formula for the distance covered is d = (1/2)At^2.
>
> In english units, acceleration of Earth's gravity is approximately 32 ft/
> sec/sec. I'll leave off the units, and you can see how this works.
>
> d = -16t^2
>
> This is a parabola. First derivative (as you point out elsewhere) give
> velocity:
>
> s = -32t
>
> This is a straight line,
The equation for free-fall distance (discounting air resistance and
buoyancy effects) due to gravitational acceleration is:
y=\frac{1}{2}(9.80665\cdot x^2)
The instantaneous velocity of a falling object due solely to
gravitational acceleration (discounting air resistance and buoyancy
effects) that has traveled distance x is:
y=\sqrt{2\cdot 9.80665\cdot \left(\frac{1}{2}\left(9.80665\cdot
x^2\right)\right)}
Thus (taken straight from the graph):
Time: Distance Fallen: Vi:
1 second 4.903 m 9.807 m/sec
2 seconds 19.613 m 19.613 m/sec
3 seconds 44.13 m 29.42 m/sec
Compare that to your equation.
Time: Distance Fallen: Vi:
1 second 16 feet (4.9768 m) 32 feet/sec (9.7535 m/sec)
2 seconds 64 feet (19.5072 m) 64 feet/sec (19.5072 m/sec)
3 seconds 144 feet (43.8912 m) 96 feet/sec (29.2609 m/sec)
<http://i.imgur.com/5fT3sCp.png>
> but its units are in a different frame of reference. You don't plot
> this line with the parabola and hope to see something meaningful
Huh, I just did. You apparently can't. LOL
> -- you use this resulting formula (the first derivative) to develop
> the formula that gives you a line tangent to the curve for any given x.
>> we're talking about the slope of its derivative, for which the only
>> two true conditions are [0,0] and [2,4].
> I'm afraid you're still confused.
Says the guy who can't figure out how to read a graph. Do you not
understand that the graph represents the equations, and can thus be
used to figure out the same results as the equations? Are ya skooled
yet? LOL
>>> arctan(10)
>>> 1.47112767430373459185287557176173085185530637718323
>>>
>>> So there's your answer in radians, Cadet Fakey.
>>>
>>> Oh, you want that in degrees?
>>> 84.28940686250035748730411865176563988852083893309440
>>>
>>> So the curve x^2 at that point (5,25) is about 6 degrees from vertical,
>>> leaning to the right...political pun not intended.
>> It's just as easy to graph it.
>> <http://i.imgur.com/x2Z9U7s.png>
>> <http://i.imgur.com/emGGhNA.png>
>> Gee... I got the same answers you did.
> No you didn't,
Yeah. I did. Same angle in radians and degrees as you got. LOL
> you graphed formulas that are only orthogonally related to each other.
I got the correct answers. Again. LOL
> Let me show you what it looks like closer to the origin:
> x = 3
> f(x) = x^2
> so for the point in question, you have (3,9)
That's exactly what I got. LOL
<http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
> d/dx(f(x)) = 2x
> so the slope of the line tangent to the curve at (3,9) is 6.
That's exactly what I got. LOL
<http://i.imgur.com/sO60qV6.png>
> But that is the slope of the line _that passes through 3,9_. So the
> formula for _that_ line -- the line that would make sense to graph with
> it -- is
>
> [ insert here: you know the formula for the line of a given slope
> is y=mx+c, I hope, where "m" is the slope. If not, then welcome to first
> semester algebra.]
>
> y = 6x + c, where "c" is some constant to make the line pass through
> (3,9). (That is to say, the value of y when x=0).
>
> So solve for c:
>
> 9 = 6(3) +c
> c = -9
>
> So the line that makes sense to plot with the parabola is:
> y = 6x-9
>
> *NOW* you can start plotting:
> http://imgur.com/PMbfGPj
>
> The _line_ I plotted is tangent to the curve at (3,9). It passes through
> (3,9), and it's "parallel" (instantaneously) at that point.
>
> All the derivative gives you is the _slope_ of the line I plotted -- but
> you still need to figure out the formula for the line, and that changes
> from point to point.
>
> _That_ is how you use a derivative. Look at the graph. Do you see now?
And that gives 80.538 degrees, or 1.40565 radians, at that point.
<http://i.imgur.com/a1KIqCN.png>
Gee... I was right. Again. Why can't you read a graph? Are ya skooled
yet? LOL
>> Seems I have an intuitive grasp on the mechanics and the mathematics of it,
> I'm afraid not, you just plotted a bunch of functions that were
> orthogonally related, but not the line that would have been obvious to
> plot, given what a derivative is _for_.
>
> Unless you can come up with some kind of utility to plotting the line
> indicated by the formula that gives you the slope of a line tangent to
> the curve at a given point, I'd have to say you're utterly at sea.
Is that why I've gotten it right twice now, with even greater accuracy
than you could manage in the second instance? LOL
> (Say...are you on a bote?)
Paranoid fanfic.
>> whereas Shiny Tinfoil Spankard has yet to produce even a single
>> graph *or* correct equation. LOL
> But he knows how to take a derivative, and doesn't call them "co-
> functions" (or claim that other people are using the term when they
> clearly haven't).
Shiny Tinfoil Spankard asked why x^2 and 2x aren't co-functions. Sine
and cosine are co-functions, thus the "co" in cosine. Yet again, I'm
right. LOL
>> Now... what's all that got to do with the fact that Shiny Tinfoil
>> Spankard is a backpedaling bleatfarting blither-blathering liar
>> desperately raping Google
> You know, you'd get a lot farther in this process if you'd learn a little
> charity.
I give none to those who give none.
> I'm x-posting this to afn so that interested parties that can't
> participate in this group can comment.
You mean Paul Derbyshire's kensi sock? I SPNAK!d that tard right out
of AUK. He ran away and melted down after being proven to be
delusional on politics, astrophysics, geometry, climate change and a
whole lot more. LOL
> --
> Won a Checky(tm) on 2016-04-15
> ...for schooling a kook about derivatives.
> (Including working through a sample problem.)
Chimpy only hands out his 'awards from a kook' to people he wants a
"hawt wet 69" (Chimpy's words) with... that's why he's given one to
Paul Derbyshire... but Derbyshire had to perform two "hawt wet 69s"
(Chimpy's words) to get it... strange then, that Chimpy's been begging
for and demanding from Derbyshire another. LOL
Did I mention Chimpy's into fat dudes? If you've got pink spandex,
boxing gloves and some lube, you're *in*, Scott.
<snicker>
--
Kensi the moron wrote:
================================
The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2, and its area is 4*pi*r^2, so
the curvature is 4*pi
================================
Kensi the moron said the Gaussian curvature = 1 / r^2 *and* the
Gaussian curvature = 4 * pi.
Therefore, 1 / r^2 = 4 * pi
Therefore, r = 0.28209479176
Kensi the moron says every sphere in the entire universe has a radius
of 0.28209479176. Of course, being a moron, kensi didn't specify the
units.
The moron also said the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is dependent
upon that sphere's radius. Wholly incorrect.
Kensi the moron was corrected:
================================
Did... did you just say "the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2" *and* "the
Gaussian curvature = 4*pi" therefore "1/r^2 = 4*pi"? Now you
backpedal, LunkHead.
You mean the Gaussian curvature = 1/r^2 * (4*pi*r^2) therefore =
(4*pi), and therefore the Gaussian curvature of a sphere is
independent of r due to its symmetry, thereby proving your original
"The sphere's Gaussian curvature is 1/r^2" blather *wrong*?
================================
But Kensi the moron persists in insisting that what he wrote isn't
fucked up, and that the Gaussian curvature of a sphere *does* depend
upon its radius, because he doesn't understand the equations he's
trying to use, he doesn't know the difference between 'constant
curvature' and 'Gaussian curvature', he doesn't know what an integral
is, and he's a halfwit who can't figure out even basic geometry
problems.
Now remember, this is the same moron who k'lames he's an
astrophysicist... yet he's stated that the Riemann curvature tensor
concept being the central mathematical tool in the theory of general
relativity and the modern theory of gravity, and the curvature of
space-time being described by the geodesic deviation equation, is
"science fiction" and "a howler".
In addition, the moron k'lamed that 4-D Minkowski space-time was
mostly positive Gaussian curvature, with only small areas of negative
Gaussian curvature, which proves the moron has no idea of the effects
of mass or magnetism upon the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold.
He has k'lamed that the Gaussian curvature of the universe is
predominantly positive, which means Lunkhead believes that massive
objects such as planets, stars and black holes ride *above* the
tangential plane of the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, thereby
making the planes of principal curvature positive Gaussian curvature,
and thus causing gravity to *repel*. It also means LunkHead believes
the universe to be finite, and therefore it cannot be expanding.
Lunkhead the moron has k'lamed that magnetism has "*no* effect" upon
the 4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, then backpedaled and said there
was a "small amount of positive curvature due to the energy density in
the field", thereby proving he doesn't know how magnetism affects the
4-D Minkowski space-time manifold, and denies the existence of
magnetic attraction.
Thus, Kensi the moron has described a universe in which planets could
not maintain their orbits, a universe in which magnets could not work,
and therefore a universe which could not exist.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow at a colder temperature
than the surrounding atmosphere is somehow violating the First and
Second Laws of Thermodynamics and giving off "blackbody radiation".
Kensi is the same moron who k'lames that snow gives off "blackbody
radiation" at wavelengths that would put the temperature of the snow
at 489 F.
Kensi attempted to back up his kooky k'lame above by further k'laming
that snow emits at wavelengths which correspond to a variety of
temperatures, presumably from 489 F to -422 F, because the moron
doesn't understand that the Planck curve breaks down under certain
circumstances, meaning snow emits in accordance with the Wien
Displacement Law in a ~2.1251 micron window centered on the ~11-micron
infrared atmospheric window, not Planck's curve.
Kensi is the same moron who first denied the existence of the
~11-micron infrared atmospheric window, then backpedaled and k'lamed
that snow emitted outside that ~11-micron window, and was proven
wrong. Then the spankard moron tried to use the backpedal of
"blackbody radiation" being at a different wavelength than spectral
emission, yet again demonstrating that the moron has no clue how
spectral absorption and emission works.
Kensi is the same moron who k'lamed heat flows from cooler to warmer;
that in a solid, molecules are "flying-and-bouncing-around-the-place",
that heat is "stirring up the molecules" and putting the molecules on
a "somewhat different trajectory", thereby demonstrating that LunkHead
cannot even grasp such basic topics as what heat is.
Kensi is the same moron who denies the NASA SABER study proving that
CO2 is a global *cooling* gas _because_ of the ~11-micron infrared
atmospheric window.
The reality exposed by the NASA SABER study also proves the Klimate
Katastrophe Kook Anthropogenic Global Warming k'lame of CO2 being a
global warming gas is a fairy tale that violates the First and Second
Laws of Thermodynamics, thus destroying CO2-induced AGW, yet this same
moron continues to cling to his delusions.
Kensi is the same moron who continues to cling to his delusion that
global warming causes more intense hurricanes, despite three
peer-reviewed studies proving the exact opposite.
Kensi is not an astrophysicist, he's far too stupid to be. He's just a
lumpy dumpy frumpy slumpy shroomtard loser trying to pretend that he's
intelligent... and failing badly.
That would be because Kensi is a moron with an underpowered brain that
struggles (and fails) to understand reality.
Back to alt.free.newsservers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-16 14:48 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-17 07:35 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-17 01:50 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-17 18:08 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-18 07:29 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-18 06:24 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-17 23:28 -0700
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-04-17 23:37 -0700
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-19 08:28 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-19 18:58 +0800
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-19 21:33 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-19 23:21 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-20 06:58 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-20 13:34 +0800
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-20 01:37 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-21 07:23 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-21 01:37 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-21 08:38 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-22 08:07 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-22 09:04 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-22 11:57 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-23 07:33 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-21 07:47 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-20 07:20 +0200
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Bite My Shiny Metal Ass <bender@the.future> - 2016-04-20 14:15 +0800
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-04-20 09:50 -0400
Re: Walking through a problem that uses a derivative Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-04-21 07:53 +0200
csiph-web