cronxeh

welcome to.. the real world! Here I've enclosed the plot

z=f(x,y)=x^y-y^x=0

Oh geez. I only skimmed through the replies looking at a plot but only seen Q1 plot in post ~ #76 ? I see DQW posted it, its cool. I'm particularly interested in similarities between this particular function and the gamma function - since it does have some similar regions as well as curves which could be a little 'massaged' to make alike. What would be the purpose of that? Well maybe no really good purpose but just for a visual satisfaction, but then again so are most interesting functions in math Sees an angry mob emerging on the horizon.. Booyakasha!

Well back in Physicsforums.com we've done a little discussion on this exact subject, and the graph I've got is this:

There is a workaround for HUP, but the science hasnt caught up yet. I think, and Ive been thinking this for some time now, that if you can measure the tiny fluctuations around the particle's field, you can know its relative momentum, and as for position you can deduce those statistically later on, thus giving you a relative equation Saying uncertainty is independent of method is ignorance. HUP is _exactly_ based on measurement flaws. It pertains to both position and energy measurements, and so far this unfortunate flaw in measurement has been delaying a lot of scientific progress

You are given A(0,0,0) B(0,8,3) and C(-4,4,0). 1) AB dot AC 2) (AC)*(AB)*cos(BAC) = AB dot AC AB = 8 j + 3 k AC = -4 i + 4 j AB = sqrt(8^2 + 3^2) = sqrt(64+9) = sqrt(73) AC = sqrt((-4)^2 + 4^2) = sqrt(16 + 16) = sqrt(32) AB dot AC = 32 or if you use unit vectors it should be.. 0.6621 1) 0.6621 2) angle BAC = cos^-1 ( 32/48.33) = 48.541

Hiya.. this looks creepily similar to PF, but oh well