User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:31:16 PM EDT
[#1]
you don't |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:31:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Your making my brain hurt! Ask this again in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:33:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Try to calmly reason with it. Be firm but remain calm. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:41:17 PM EDT
[#4]
OK although these are fairly good answers for going on 2000 hrs (8pm) after a 3 day weekend BUT since this is for my son who has a quiz in the morning on this I will need a little more mathmatical input and less philosophical input, although he is tempted to use the "misterc" reply and see if he gets bonus points.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:45:11 PM EDT
[#5]
LOL |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:48:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Come on where are all the think tankmath wizard nasa types when you need them?!?!?
In the 8 years or so we have been on this board we have never posted a question that the members here couldn't answer, so I know that this wont be the first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:53:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Well I think your problem is by definition an IRrational number is one that cannot be expressed as a quotient of two numbers (i.e. a fraction)
I'd help ya but its been years since I did what you actually want help with and I forgot it all 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:55:08 PM EDT
[#8]
45/100
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:55:34 PM EDT
[#9]
What irrational number are you trying to put into a calculator?
e π sqrt(2) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:56:17 PM EDT
[#10]
S=t1=0.45= 0.45= 5
--- ----- ---- -- = 8/7? 1-r 1-0.01 0.99 11 sorry had to |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 4:56:18 PM EDT
[#11]
The very first reply to the thread was your answer, whether you choose to believe it or not. I will summarize what another poster said as well. The definition of an irrational number is one that cannot be turned into a fraction of two integers. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:00:45 PM EDT
[#12]
I would say... hmm... how do u make an irrational # into a fraction?
Very Carefully! lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:02:26 PM EDT
[#13]
What these guys said ... You can't do it. By definition an irrational number can not be made into a fraction (rational number).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:04:24 PM EDT
[#14]
All of the above responses are correct. By definition you cannot convert an irrational number into a fraction. But I think what you are really asking is how to turn a repeating decimal into a fraction. For that answer, go look here:
Need to convert a repeating decimal to a fraction? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:04:58 PM EDT
[#15]
It is a repeating decimal.
In the equation I first listed, that is the whole thing, we just dont know how they went from the next to last step to the final answer. I mean we know they divided the numerator and denomenator by .09 but why??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:07:01 PM EDT
[#16]
See my post just above yours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:07:41 PM EDT
[#17]
If I am reading correctly, you have the equation S = (T1)/ (1 - R) you then substituted T1=0.45 and R = 0.01 and ended up with the fraction 0.45/0.99. And your question is how to reduce it. The answer to that is to treat it like 45/99 (multiply by 100/100), and then factor a 9 out of the numerator and denominator to get to 5/11 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:11:00 PM EDT
[#18]
This is entirely true. I would like to note however that Irrational Numbers fall into 2 categories: (Algebraic Irrational Numbers - such as the square root of 2, and Transcendental Irrational Numbers such as Pi or e.) Having acknowledged that it is impossible to Express single Irrational Number as a Fraction. You can Transform an Irrational Number and map it to the Rational Numbers through multiplication. For example Sqrt(2) * Sqrt(2) = 2 (2 can be expressed as 2/1, therefore it is a Rational Number) Similarly Pi * 2/(3*Pi) = 2/3 {Rational Numbers} UNION {Irrational Numbers} = Real Number Set |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:13:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Can you explain why e^(pi*i) = -1 smarty pants? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:14:52 PM EDT
[#20]
You know...George Cantor tried to reason with a bunch of Irrational Numbers...and look where it got him! He ended up in an Insane Asylum! Just because this group of Irrational Numbers convinced him that even there were an INFINITE Number of Rational Numbers and an INFINITE Number of Irrational Numbers...there were always MORE Irrational Numbers than Rational Numbers. Even though both were Infinite Sets. So you see...it is little wonder that poor Mr. Cantor ended up completely Irrational with his Diagonalization Arguement! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:15:10 PM EDT
[#21]
That's some pretty wacky stuff. What's the point? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:15:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Thank you, that site was exactly what we were looking for.
Your help is greatly appreciated. Once again the ARFCOM Think Tank comes through!!! Thanks TrojanFan and TrojanFan Jr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:17:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Trivial! e(pheta*i) = Cos(pheta) + i*sin(pheta) Let pheta = Pi and you get sin(Pi) = 0 and Cos((Pi) = -1 Therefore e(pheta*i) = Cos(pheta) + i*sin(pheta) = -1 + i*0 = -1 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:18:05 PM EDT
[#24]
according to Euler e^(pi*i) = cos (pi) + i*sin(pi) sin (pi) = 0 cos(pi) = -1 in case he doesnt get it  bah beat me to it |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:21:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Not wacky at all, merely pointing out the difference between expressing a number versus performing a function (or mapping or transformation) on a number or in this case a set of numbers such as the {cube root of any positive rational number} can be mapped to the set of all positive Rational Numbers through the function of cubing the {set of cube roots of any positive rational number} |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:22:55 PM EDT
[#26]
Euler was BRILLIANT. Imagine churning out enough scientific papers to fill 80 volumes, and doing quite a bit of it BLIND! |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:24:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Doesn't that have to do with how you can map the set of all positive and negative integers to only the set of all positive integers? I remember all that stuff  Like how there are still more irrational numbers between 0 and 1 then there are rational numbers |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:28:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Eulers... im too slow today |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:31:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Although I enjoy complex problems and discusion points my 17 y/o son is in classes like...
Advanced Placement Calc/Trig combo course Advanced Placement Physics Advanced Placement CompScience Programming Advanced Placement World lit And others He also finds the time to play QB on offense and FS on defense He also has a job He can play all 80's metal guitar music And is an all around good non gang banger, non drug user, non rap kind of kid who also happens to be able to shoot 10 out of 10 at 100m on a 3 inch shoot n see and 6 or 7 out of 10 at 200m with a Colt 20" AR. I'm a proud papa and I have 3 other younger boys too. So i figure if I bring them all up right I will be able to retire one day and never have to worry about them taking care of themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:33:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Cool tell him to stick with the math when he gets to college and he'll soon be messing with problems like that infinite numbers/cardinality bullshit above. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:33:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Can you explain that one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:35:02 PM EDT
[#32]
Nah, it will be Laplace, Fourier Transforms, Transform equations and Tunneling if he plays his cards right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:35:49 PM EDT
[#33]
A trig identity. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:37:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Cantor developed a neat theary of infinities. Denumerable infinities can be paired with the intigers (called aleph-1). Non-denumerable infinites are one level higher (called aleph-2). Like the example posted of intigers being an infinite set, but there are an infinity of rational numbers between any two integers.
Some of the answers get pretty weird. Like an infinite checkerboard still being denumerable, so aleph-1 squared remains denumberable. His theories put many conepts involving limits onto a solid footing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:41:44 PM EDT
[#35]
He likes to study things like string theory, black holes and such too.
We is considering some sort of comp sci engineering degree. He likes programming and he likes designing and inventing things and retrofitting things to work better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:44:09 PM EDT
[#36]
yada yada yada... all this is fun and games
but what does it all MEAN? There is order and rationality in the universe and man is somehow fashoned to discover and understand it WHY? For what purpose? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:46:18 PM EDT
[#37]
He has been offered to go to DC for a class on homeland defense dealing with comp sci security stuff and DOD think tank stuff, but I have to come upwiththe 5K for him to go.
He is going to prob go to TU for his 4 yr degree than MIT he hopes for a masters but he is applying to MIT and seeing if he can do all 6 yrs at MIT on a full scholarship. He told his mom and I he wanted to go to MIT when he ws 5 yrs old in kindergartne and doing talented and gifted classes with 5th graders. He read a pop sci mag with an MIT article and he has been hooked since. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:47:41 PM EDT
[#38]
Chuck Norris once ran into a irrational number while doing his taxes. He pondered this a while, then roundhouse kicked it so hard it turned into an integer. We now know that number as 87.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:48:09 PM EDT
[#39]
MRW to answer your "Why" question...
So that we can not only know what gun Al Pacino used in Heat, but WHY he used that weapon and how it will work on zombies in space with a 1/7 twist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:49:03 PM EDT
[#40]
That's like saying Military Intelligence.  Physics is were your going to get the most string theory. I had a bit of string in EE but alot more about tunnelling and such in nanotech/materials classes (tunnelling is far more useful right now i.e. transistors). stuff like this: http://www.aip.org/pnu/1998/split/pnu357-1.htm |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:49:07 PM EDT
[#41]
oops. delayed double tap
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 5:49:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Because we can. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:02:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Not without copying it out of my system dynamics text no. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:21:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Gauss once said that Mathematics is the Queen of Sciences, and Number theory is the Queen of Mathematics. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:25:24 PM EDT
[#45]
Easy, perform a taylor series expansion on e^(x*i) Then decompose your series expansion in the form of (yada yada yada) + (why why why)*i Next perform taylor series exapansion on both Cos(x) and Sin(x) Notice anything? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2006 6:33:44 PM EDT
[#46]
[qoute]How do I turn an irrational
There fixed it And with an AXE |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
