mooeypoo

Yeah I knew that for when a b c and d are known. There is also a command called "roots()" in Matlab and "poly()" that deals with finding the roots of and building a polynomial from the roots. However, this time I had the other way around -- no a b c d and 4 sets of x and y, which is why I was that lost. Your example showed how to implement the same technique that I generally knew when dealing with missing y/x for this problem - with the missing abcd vars. Thanks! ~moo

Okay. No.. I have no idea how to do that O.o Well, I know how to multiply matrices in vector, I just don't know the method you're talking about here (I'm new to Matrices... egh) What do the x31, x32, x33, x34 ... mean? multiplications? I'm sorry for being a pain.. I am new to both Matlab and Matrices, and my book doesn't really give examples for this. ~moo ----- EDIT: ----- Oh, another thing -- I understand the x32 x23 etc are actually *powers* of the different xs.. I just saw lots of numbers with x's and freaked out. Sorry But.. the question in the book requests that the function solves 4 linear equations to figure out the a b c d variables... I am not sure if that fits under that. On the other hand, I've been working on making 4 linear equations to represent the different variables with not much success, so I guess I'm going to do that instead ... Uhm.. Thanks a bunch ~moo Okay, It's working! I reviewed half the book again (sobs) but I finally managed to apply the technique you showed. Here's the final code: disp('Executing Problem #17'); function [A,B,C,D]=getcoeffs(x1,y1,x2,y2,x3,y3,x4,y4) %create a matrix for x variables: XMatrix=[x1^3 x1^2 x1 1;x2^3 x2^2 x2 1;x3^3 x3^2 x3 1;x4^3 x4^2 x4 1] YVector=[y1; y2; y3; y4]; Allvars=XMatrix\YVector; A=Allvars(1); B=Allvars(2); C=Allvars(3); D=Allvars(4); end %%Command: [a b c d]=getcoeffs(-2,-20,0,4,2,68,4,508); Works like a charm. Thank you VERY VERY MUCH!!!!! ~moo

Okay, I am completely stuck. I have a homework question that I just can't manage to find the right approach for. I know what I should do if I solve it manually, though it's a long process, but I can't manage to build the function, and I really -- really really -- need help. Quite urgently, actually. It's due tomorrow. I've been trying this for the entire day already. The sad thing is that the solution is probably quite easy, and I am going to feel really stupid but I'm going to risk it. The problem is this: Now. I am thinking that I need to do this in stages, so I have my representations of a, b, c and d:[math]a=(bx^2+cx+d-y)/x^3[/math] [math] b=(ax^3+cx+d-y)/x^2[/math] [math]c=(ax^3+bx^2+d-y)/x[/math] [math] d=ax^3+bx^2+cx+d[/math] But I have two problems. First, these are unknown, so if I try to compute them one by one in the function, i get an error message because the variables are unknown. I tried defining them as symbolic (syms) but that didn't work. Plus.. they're not really symbolic, so I am not sure how to do that. I think I'm overcomplicating things, but I did try this method: I represented C in terms of a b d and y, and then replaced it within the representation of a, and simplified everything to get: [math] a=((1+x^2)/(1-x^2))*(b/x + (d-y)/x^3) [/math] Agh.. okay that didn't really lead me anywhere, other than cancelling out C and representing the equation in a bit of a more ordered way... but I had to try... help... <sobs> heelllppppp... ~moo

Well, here's a little promo: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707332488059305178 And here's a discussion in PhysOrg.com about it: http://www.physorg.com/news6713.html I would have to actually watch what the movie is saying to form an opinion, but I have to say that putting out "Einstein's Wrong" in a movie demands some pretty heavy facts to back it up. But then again, it claims that it's not about Einstein being wrong, so I guess I'm just a tinsy bit worried about having another "What the bleep" type idiocy, and that is making me paranoid. The websites says it should have been out already, but I couldn't find anything. Anyone knows what or where this could be watched? ~moo

Yeah, humor... The rest of what I said showed that I meant it as a "oh my oh my how complicated, how annoying that I need to sit on my tushy and study". I'll try to avoid it next time. In any case, Really, we're taking things way out of proportion. I didn't mean it literally sux, and in case my assumption that you didn't mean to offend anyone is true, let's just drop the entire subject. Seriously. Let's practice math, instead, it's a lot more productive. ~moo

"She." But yeah, I didn't think there was nothing wrong with my attitude, this is a request for help, not an life-or-death argument. I just figured if someone's that critical of those who ask for help, he doesn't deserve responses back. Plus, w=f[z] was so helpful, I didn't want to degrade the thread. Thanks to all that helped, I finished the course with an A-, which, considering the fact I am a full time employee, it's not too bad at all. Cheers, ~moo

Hi guys! Simple question, not much need to over-explain: What (if any) is the difference between an Astronomer and an Astrophysicist? Thanks! ~moo

do "Future Specialties" count? I'm currently on my way to achieve a bachelors in Eletrical Engineering, followed by Astrophysics degree... so at the MOMENT I'm still a partial layman. In the future, though.. well. That's a different story ~moo

Yom means "Day" literally in hebrew. In fact, it doesn't mean a 24 hour day, but rather a DAY DAY -- as in, light time. In the bible, it even says "There be Day and there be NIGHT, day One".. in the jewish religion, each day starts with the setting of the sun of the previous day. The word "day" itself, in the bible, usually only refers to the light-time of the day. by the way, in hebrew, the word "Yom" is used to say regular day (like in english.. 24 hour day from midnight to midnight) but also it has another meaning to say "light time", but it's used less in contemporary hebrew. The jewish religious appologetics claim a few things about the meaning of days - first, that God has a different "definition" for days, and that a day for god can be a millenium for us. Second, that God's all powerful, therefore a full day is possible for the creation of whatever it is god wants to create. (of course, as to why the heck use 6 days at all and not just do everything at once, they have no answer..) Since god only creates the sun in the middle of the process, then the text contradicts itself (how can there be a distinction between night and day if no sun? right.. one of many errancies). Anyhoos, it's all a bunch of hooey. The literal translation of "day" as appears in context of Genesis is "lighttime" of the day (and the story mentions nighttime as a contrast). Mentioning of times, however, was always one of the bible's biggest fault - people lived to be 700 or 900, etc. It's quite hard to excuse these, unless you continuously change the definition of what day means. As I said.. a bunch of hooey. ~moo To answer the original question, I would say that if a person was born into creationism without really knowing anything else, his fault is ignorance, but not mental disorder. I would say, though, that the hardcore "never to be convinced" evangelicals out there who - no matter what - believe in creationism despite all evidence, are, in fact, suffering from some sort of disorder indeed. I don't think it's PHYSICAL though, so I wouldn't call it a mental disorder (because usually, as far as I know these are physical..?) but perhaps a psychological disorder.. There's something seriously wrong with people who ignore reality to support their delusions. if these folks would claim a pink unicorn is out there and they see it while praying, and it tells them we will all go to unicorn hell therefore they must try to convert us, then they would - most probably - be under strict medical supervision. If they start walking around preaching the end of the world, or racism, or on-the-verge-of-violence crap (as some extra evangelistic creationists do) they may even be locked up. So. Yes. I would say it fits the definition. I would much rather believe they're able to be changed, without any drugs. At least most of them. That's my two cents. ~moo

You guys are mean. I'm never asking anything again. Thanks btw ~moo

Geesh I didn't think about that.. hehehe.. So.. along with the breathing part (Why would there be a problem with that btw?) it's practically impossible?

Hey guys, Is it plausible to create a technology of phasing through solid walls like we see in sci-fi movies or is that too far-fetched? Obviously, we can't in our days, but is that even a possibility for the future? Thanks, ~moo

I'm not sure, but I think dogs exhibit a "shame" behavior when they do something bad... it may just be fear, though. I wonder if there are any researches out there about that.

dear god i didn't start three-dimensional stuff... but.. uhh... i'll save it for the future. Thanks ~moo

The romans had lots of public orgies in their time, and regarded sexual intercourse with women as a tool, but with other men as a form of "art" of a sort. The body image they had was incredible, they regarded the human body as the creation of the gods. It's a good question about human inhibition, I think we should take into acount that in our day and age, the perception of the human body is very low. We have tiny thin women in magazines stating what a woman "should" look like (and not many do look like that..), or hugenormous penises in sex movies showing us what men are "supposed" to look like (and not many men look like that either).. the result is that the individual perception of their own body image is a lot lower than it used to be. Social changes created these inhibitions, I believe. Think of the 1700/1800: women wore dresses that were meant to hide every inch of their body other than the cleavage.. women with a slightly-bigger-than-average cleavage were considered whores. So, I think society taught us to be prudish. The current state of diseases like bulimia and anorexia also show how poor the body image is in our time. ~moo

I'm saying that we have an obligation to make sure society is TOLERANT to accept everything that is not harming anyone. A personal right to change a PERSONAL attribute is one thing. A social taboo over arbitrary issues is unethical and wrong, and we should learn that from history. I'm not saying that we should interrogate someone's reasons for change. I'm saying that we should make sure society is tolerant so that a person changes himself because that's what he really WANTS, and not to avoid social racism or taboo. It's our RESPONSIBILITY as a society to create tolerant society. Think about it this way: If a black person wants to become white, I see no problem with the individual himself, or his decision, regardless of WHY he wants to change himself. I do see a problem with SOCIETY, however, if that person decides to "become white" because in that society black people are considered sub-race, or lesser individuals, or a social taboo. The person himself has a right. Society SHOULDN'T. I don't believe it's about the "I".. it's about the "us". Society. We're talking about decisions to declare something or decide something SOCIALLY. Not individually.. social decisions are a whole different subject than just what YOU would or wouldn't do. That's my point. I agree, it would be a very interesting discussion. I also think we should consider evolutionary process. If homosexuality IS genetic, and it exists for such a long time, then perhaps it isn't such a "problem" at all. The only reason we consider genetic conditions as a problem is when they HURT people. Homosexuality HURTS no one, other than their preset dogmas. And if we go by preset dogmas, then let's eliminate science altogether, since it rejects the idea of the biggest preset dogma ever: creationism. Yes, I agree, and I also think that the mere DISCUSSION about ethics is the most important thing to keep humanity attempting to remain/improve ethics. ~moo

If someone is unhappy with himself, he has a right to change himself, regardless of WHAT it is he's changing: Hair color, Eye color, Limb Length, Skin Color, or sexual affinity. If it's POSSIBLE to change and safe to, the individual has a RIGHT to. The thing is, however, that we should make sure a person choses to change whatever he wants to change because this is what he *wants* and not because this is what society declares - arbitrarily - as a non-accepted issue. You want to change your skin color? Go right ahead, but if you do that because society says black people are sick, diseased, or "lower" socially and mentally than "whites" then that decision is coming from the wrong reason, regardless what it is you want to change. Also, these type of declarations (that certain things are 'diseases' or 'mental problems' or whatever) opens the ground for SOCIAL decisions: the elimination - in advance - of these type of behaviors or genetic affinities. We try to make sure we do not bear genetically flawed children that will suffer in their life during pregnancies. If we declare something as a genetic PROBLEM, we need to be prepared for the possibility our society nips the bud before birth. Would you be prepared for that? Is it ETHICAL to do that? There's a difference between someone making a PERSONAL decision about himself, and society just decides to eliminate certain types of genetic conditions. ~moo

That sux. Thanks though.. hehe.. I'll have to REALLY practice on that one, the multiple chainrule thing is confusing. I see the point now.. but.. er. I need practice, I think. Thanks ~moo

Guys, I have some homework and the answer itself matters less - I just can't figure out *how* to do these type of questions.. I figure it has to do with an elaborate chain rule, but.. I can't do it right. I would appreciate help in this. btw, sorry if this is in the wrong forum - I couldn't find the goold ol' "Homework Help" forum. The question is this: f(x) = 2^[3^(x^2)] find dy/dx. Again, I *have* a final answer, I just don't understand how to do the chain rule itself on this one.. it seems like a double chain rule? ergh. Anyone has some sort of method/trick for these type of questions? Thanks! ~moo

On the same note -- as long as a person is healthy, he's good, but if he's injured in some way, is it plausible that the person would demand higher amounts of energy..? My idea was more of this sort -- the nanobots create new pathways in the brain that allow for more control of a device the person is carrying on him (in the form of a hand-held device, or something). The device ITSELF allows communication (receiver/transmitter) but the new brain pathways allow controlling it using the brain ("thought").. plausible enough? So, to partially summarize: I have characters who are relatively normal to the outside world, but they require regular "immunizations" to "upgrade" the bots to new type of diseases. They can heal faster than normal, but demand more energy to do that, and some biological material to fully "heal". That covers it? ~moo

Oh yes, there are many roads to go on that one, but I don't plan to have my story on the nanobots.. I have a different story, but people that carry "incredible abilities" that - later on - are explained scientifically - is one of the main ones. I was thinking of nanobots as one route, have some thoughts on another. In any case, that's why I don't want to concentrate on the AI-gone-bad thing.. it's not the story. I don't want 'perfect' people, i want incredible-abilities that can be explained through science. If I create magnificent abilities I want to make them at least - in theory - be plausible, which is why I'm looking for the "bad" effects as well.

hmmm wow. Nice. But ill-health is too far for me, I want functional individuals with inconvinience, not ill-health ones. But that's a great application. If I make my character healthier than normal because of those bots, but in need to take special medication (some chemical to make the bots 'fit' with the whitecells) and the medication occasionally cause a bit of tiredness and some occasional headaches -- is that enough to be a plausible scenario?

Yeah, no no, I would rather not use A.I, this would be the 'bad effects' of AI not of nanobots. The 'bad' effects i was looking for is more side-effects of having nanobots in the bloodstream.. one of the things i dislike about over-done scifi stories is that they create perfect humans. Nothing is ever perfect. The story is not going to concentrate on the sideeffects, but i do want to make it balanced so that i *don't* go "overboard" with the great perfect applications of nano tech. ~moo

Yes, look at Michael Jackson.. I don't disagree with the right of a person to do it to HIMSELF. But what would you do with parents who - in advance - want to "prevent" their child from becoming whatever..? Or parents who want to change their own minor son/daughter because they don't like his/her lifestyle choices or skincolor? The fact they have a RIGHT to does not mean we shouldn't try to change it socially... Again.. it all depends who makes the decision and how far it goes. Obviously we're discussing something htat's FAR from being realistic, and I'm quite happy about that, to be honest, but regardless, for the sake of the argument, I do believe this opens a lot more troubles than good; parents have a right over their MINOR children; would you support parents taking their gay son to a clinic to have gene therapy and change him? how 'bout changing their black adopted son to a white son? Having the RIGHT to does not mean we should consider it ethical, OR that we should accept it and do nothing. We could state that since it's racism and homophobia, and that they're both wrong, we would like to eliminate them using education. We did it (well.. mostly.. and still trying to) with racism (african americans and minorities) and with women acceptance into workplace. Parents have a RIGHT to, but is it ethical to do it? Shouldn't we change these social opinions? ~moo

No, I guess not, if it is proven STRICTLY genetic, then they have the right to do what they please. The question is - how far would you let this go? Would you let someone change their genetic tendencies to anything else? How 'bout you allow people to play around with genes to make their kids have tendency to be atheletes instead of 'nerds'? or tendencies to like blondes? older women? how 'bout to change someone's genes from being black to being caucasian? The point is that these "tendencies" - genetic or social - are harmless. Genetic evolution or Social evolution, they're part of our society, and they are HARMLESS, and define people's characteristics. The only reason people SUFFER for being gay is because our society is not fully accepting it. It used to not accept african-americans either, remember? Would you suggest people change their genes to become white because being african-americans means they suffer, or would you suggest changing the social background that MAKE them suffer..? ~moo