Bryn

Rearange to find x in terms of y and t, in simplest form. (assume [math]y+3t\neq0[/math]) [math]y(y-x)=3t(3t+x)[/math] I have [math]x=\frac{9t^2-y^2}{3t+y}[/math] Is this the simplest form?

Just likes to say thanks to you lot for answering my dumb (and sometimes intelligant) questions on the maths forums over the last few months. Thanks to you lot I may just get the B I need to get into Bristol uni (to do Biochemistry, not maths thankgod).

why not just put [math]Ba(OH)_{2(s)} + (aq) \rightarrow Ba(OH)_{2(aq)}[/math]. Far simpler and does exactly what is says on the tin.

I tend to prefer Nature, for generally better written articles, tho i do read articles from both.

i did, what do i do with it once i got it in the form 2(cos x cos 50-sin x sin 50) = sin x cos 40 + sin 40 cos x?

won't be too many more question, got my last maths exam monday but you help would be much appreciated. Solve for [math]0 \leq x <360[/math] [math]2cos(x + 50)^o = sin(x + 40)^o[/math] and [math]2cosx+sinx = 5[/math]

i just spent the last week working on this kind of trig (it's a barstard) so lets see if i can remeber. .. nope damn well forgoten it, i'll get me coat.

If it involved sending making a copy of the human and then destroying the origanal i don't count that, proper teleportation has got to involving moving the origanal, not making a copy and then destroying the origanal.

ah ok i get.

yes i'm trying to do it by hand, but the book i'm working from is riddled with mistakes, i dunno if i'm doing it wrong or if the book is giving mostly wrong answers.

exactly as the topic says... any ideas plz?

why does e intergrate to ex? [math]e^x[/math] intergrates to [math]e^x[/math] and as [math]e = e^1[/math] surely the intergral of e is also e?

I've got this question i'm somewhat flumexed with. [math]\int_{e}^{e^2} \left(\frac{5}{x} + e\right) dx[/math] What've i've tried is as follows [math]\int_{e}^{e^2} (5x^{-1} + e) dx = [5ln|x| +e]_{e}^{e^2}[/math] [math] = (5ln(e^2) + e) - (5ln(e) + e)[/math] [math] = (5(2) + e) - (5(1) + e)[/math] [math] = (10 + e) - (5 + e)[/math] [math] = 10 + e - 5 - e[/math] [math] = 5 [/math] which evan i can see from just looking at the graph is wrong, but for the life of my i can't see why. I'm sure i've got everything right after the intergration, but i'm almost just as sure that've i've intergrated it correctly. Any help much appreciated.

is the reason we add salt to water when cooking pasta/courgettes etc to lower the boiling temperature because they cook at less than 100 degrees?

I'd say the average lifespan is by far the most likely. I wouldn't be surprised if the twenty somethings of today live half a millenium. The least likely is colonization of mars. Outpost yes, quite soon, but i can't see proper colonization happening in my lifetime evan if i do live 500 years. o thats exluding teleportation, which'll probably remain a fantasy for some million odd years yet.

Does P(A|B) = 1 - P(A|B')?

how would you go about solving [math]log_3x - 2log_x3 = 1[/math]

You eyes skip over the text anyway when reading. They can only read stuff that they are stationery too. They must just be skipping too far. Try using a guide. Something thin so it doesn't iterfere with the text, like a pencil. It's best to move the guide across the page smoothly at about the pace your reading rather than skipping it along. This will keep your eyes in place and improve your reading speed.

I don't think so. The sugar or salt ions in the water would disrupt the formation of a perfect ice structure and so weaken it. So if anything it would melt faster. As it happens i did freeze some water which was totally saturated with sugar the other day (don't ask why). I didn't notice any significant change in the time it took to melt, but it did make a cool looking ice structure. Looked like something out of alien. Also if you think about it ice lollies melt faster than you'd expect a comparable lump of ice to, and they've got rather large quantities of sugar in it. Also the addition of salt lowers the freezing temperature of water, so it will melt sooner than normal water.

does [math]-log_ax = y \Longrightarrow a^{-y} = x[/math] or [math]\Longrightarrow -a^y = x[/math]

can someone give me a explernation of when to use the form [math]\sigma^2 = \frac{\sum(x-\mu)^2}{n}[/math] and when to use [math]s^2 = \frac{\sum(x-\bar{x})^2}{n-1}[/math]

I need to get a lockable case, one in which i can lock it so no one can nick my chip and which which has one of those cables that you can wrap around a table leg so no one can walk off with the case either. I'd like one that is good for o/c and has a fan in the side as well. (would a fan in the side make it unsercure?) Any recommendations.

No it doesn't, otherwise they'd be no oxygen for us to breath It may increase it as an indirect result if the sunlight increases the temperature of the plant but the increase would be insignificant compared to the increase in rate of photosynthesis.

Is the line from the centre of a circle to the midpoint of chord AB always perpendicular to AB?

An enzymes works by providing an alternative reaction pathway that has a lower activation energy. e.g. Without catalyst A + b -> C With catalyst A + Catalyst -> A/catalyst complex + B -> catalyst + c Remeber a catalyst is always on the side of the products as well as the reactants, it is not used up, but it does change during the reation. Not too sure on the mechanics of them working but i think they work in a variety of ways. Reacting to create better leaving groups, pushing groups outa the way so another group has more space round it, so is more likly to react with (be hit by) the other reactant etc etc. As for inhibitors there are two basic types of inhibitors, in terms of biochemical reactions anyway. One which binds with the active site of the enzyme (the bit that fits onto the substrate molecule), and stops the substrate entering. This is called competative inhibition. This is reversable. The other type of inhibitor binds to a seperate region of the enzyme and alters the shape of the active site so it can no longer bind to the substrate. This is, surprisingly, called non-competative inhibition. This second type is not reversable. As for inhibitors in a purely chemical sense dunno the mechanics, just that they inhibit