bmaxwell

The TI website has a great program called Derive on it. It is the most user friendly of all of the programs talked about in this thread. I am taking Multivariable calc this quarter and the instructor was using it to show us surfaces that we were sketching by hand. I downloaded the trial and have been using it to graph the surfaces I sketch for my homework problems. After 30 days you need to cough up $99 for the academic version. Also it works with the TI-92 calc and the 89. I have not played with these features yet.

Thats a nice Program from source forge. http://www.padowan.dk/graph/ and the source code is a available to download as well. http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/graph/GraphSource-3.3.1.zip?download hope that works. you need C++ to work with the source code. Source Forge has some GNU license stuff you can download. I think there is a Good IDE for C++ on there as well.

break down and get a student version of mathmatica

I am dumber for having attempted this. I think that the number of tickets is pretty small (when compaired to the number of possible tickets) to assure the win off 3 numbers. Pall park I would say 60 tickets is close. I think the key to your solution is based on two concepts how many unique combinations of 3 digits in the set of 49. and how many unique sets of 3 can fit on one ticket This is the point at which my brain exploded. I am sure that this has been done and if I had a probability text in front of me I would be golden. In anycase with out a brain and considering the lack of several pints of guiness needed to put out the flames, I can go no further with this for now. On a side note, BASIC be it V, Q or Old School is the wrong tool for such a programming project. I would use PERL. There are some very good Math modules that you can download and install and PERL is free. Although i dont think you would need any MATH here once in side the application you just need lots and lots of array variables. Since PERL doesnt stiff you on memory usage you can even cram all of the arrays into one big giant hash for easy extraction. Again delving to deeply into this whilst my brain is damaged would be dangerous to my health.

I think the confusion is that the examples given are not scientific notation they are infact just numbers albiet very very large numbers. Scientific notation would be something like 26 x 10^78 In this case there is a simple way to find this number with out all the fuss and hub bub of carots and the like. Just move the decimal 78 places to the right. Ofcourse I think in scientific notation a lowercase E is used. My calculator approximates all numbers this way. 26.00 e 78 something like that.

Now I see what you are saying. I guess I was looking at it as a physics problem related to the number of gravitational forces exerted on each atom in the universe. The connection from a->b is not the same connection from b->a. For instance the gravitational force that atom a exerts on atom b is not the same force that atom b exerts on a. They dont even have to be equal. They are seperate forces. Therefore they should be counted as unique connections. This is all relative to the original post and my assumption that the connection between all the atoms in the universe the Original poster refered to was in fact gravity.

Hello, I found this forum last week while looking for resources to help with my return to college adventure. I am returning to school to finnish my Math Degree after more than 10 years. I droped out of school when my wife was pregnant to find work in the then strong economy. The Dot Com boom was just getting underway at that time and the fruits of my labor were many. However in the down turned economy even after down sizing my families home, vehical, recreation time (no more cable television or movies), my job satisfaction is at an all time low. Realizing that I dont mind living with less I have decided to change careers and become a High school Math Teacher (and hopefully do some Financial Actuarial Consulting on the Side). So back to school to complete my Degree in Math, Actuarial Science to be more precise. I need about 8 courses plus a foriegn language for my degree. However I need to retake all of Calculus because I dont remeber any of it. Which leads me to how I found this site. Anyway my questions is this can anyone provide links to valuable Calculus Tutorials online I have found some myself but am not sure i like them. Or any texts that would prove usefull to relearn Calculus. I am currently working through "Forgotten Calculus" seems pretty good so far but kind of simplified. I am auditing Calc 4 Multi-Variable Calculus this summer at a local community college. If I can catch on I will be taking the first class in the probability series in the fall. If not I will be starting over in Calc 1. Also I purchased a ti 89 titanium (which may have been a bad idea) and have been looking for some information on using it as well. The book that came with it is ok but not comprehensive by any means. I would be greatful for any advice. Thanks

I think this is incorrect. The number of connections between any point and 3 other points is 12. Each point has 3 connections. One to each other point. 3 x 4 is 12 not 6.

Why are we dividing by 2? I dont understand?

The next generation of Chess playing software will not think about moves that it can make or even think about moves in the future or play out the game to the end a finite number of times based on a difficulty setting. Chess programs for a long time "thought" their way through games. Programmers tried to recreate the human chess players thought process or patterns with code. This is not an attainable goal with in the confines of contemporary computer hardware or our understanding of the human mind for that matter. The future of Chess software will abandon this path for a more enlightened approach to the problem, that uses the true strengths of the modern machine, instead of the brute force approach that our brains use to solve problems.