Hal.

Finally , I think you brought the 10 into the denominator of what you want to find the natural log of , when it should be a 1/10 multiplication factor in a product with your natural log .

x is not equal to ln(2/10) I think you have dropped a negative sign somewhere along the way . You may also be getting the natural log of 10 % of what you should be getting the natural log of .

It is possible to make a mistake and another mistake which then corrects it and you don't know of either . When you manipulate the original equation you will get different equations . Put the final value of x that you calculated at the very end into each of these equations to see if the left hand side equals the right hand side all the way from start to finish .

The route to a solution can have many paths . Some take one step where others take three . Some explain one step where others explain three . When you put a calculated value for x into the equation do you get an answer of 6 ?

Esbo , I accept that the colour of an object is how it's seen .

My compiler is telling me you haven't declared some variables that are being used , probably partly to do with a few of the following missing ;

That's English Esbo , complicated bull to you and to loads of others including myself . I don't have the necessary biological education to understand that and to examine some aspects and question the conclusions . From a light viewpoint I prefer to round off my opinion by saying the colour is what you sense . There are a lot of factors which affect it and if you want to concentrate on one or other , choose . When I did some photography I took some photos of trees and on the negatives I was surprised at how the dark shaded side of plants had made nearly no impression ( very little light ) . People think leaves are green and a photographic negative tells me in shaded circumstances leaves are near black , people still say green .

Amanda , It was very interesting that when I went at the end of 2001 to find the U.S. stock market values for each close in 2001 , I observed that for a week after the attacks on New York indices were valued at 0 . Was nothing an accurate value of the U.S. stock market at that time or was that just because there was no calculated value ? Imatfaal also gave an answer to a post above . Care to enlighten us ?

Amanda , Should stock market participants be responsible for what happens to a company's losses just as they are responsible for it's profits ? Should they always operate in credit , making any losses covered by collateral ?

Thoughts upon the colour of plants . NASA In the near infrared maybe they look like a hazy shade of the 1970's .

Doesn't anybody see anything good in this Chinese picture ? Yes , it fell over , hey , it looks like it's in one piece , lift it back up , does anybody have a crane big enough ? There is obviously signs of progress , is it reinforced concrete ?

Laurens , When people use smaller dimensions such as 0.500 mm this is called 500 microns , 1 micron is 1 millionth of a Metre 0.007 mm would be 7 microns 0.008 mm would be 8 microns 0.007 742 mm would be 7.742 microns to 3 decimal places

Michel , If width dimension is at 100 : 1 and breadth dimension is at 100 : 1 then the scale of area is at 10 000 : 1 This is a derived scale of area from the overall scale and on a technical drawing the scale given would be , all dimensions 100 : 1

If 40 mm represented 0.5 mm , then 30 mm would represent 30 mm / 40 mm of 0.5 mm = 0.75 x 0.5 mm = ? If 31 mm represented 0.01 mm , then 24 mm would represent 24 mm / 31 mm of 0.01 mm = ?

Is it the magnification in one dimension or in two dimensions that is needed , if I see this correctly ? Case 1 . If there was a picture which was 100 mm wide magnified and it represented 5 mm actual width then the magnification of the width would be 100 mm / 5 mm = 20 If the magnification of the area was of interest then this would be the product of the magnifications of the width and the length , thus 20 x 20 = 400 Case 2 . If there was a picture which was 1000 mm wide magnified and it represented 200 mm actual width then the magnification of the width would be 1000 mm / 200 mm = 5 If the magnification of the area was of interest then this would be the product of the magnifications of the width and the length , thus 5 x 5 = 25 Case 3 . If there was an image which was 50 mm wide magnified and it represented an actual width of 0.001 mm then the magnification of the width would be 50 mm / 0.001 mm = 50 000 The magnification of the area would be 50 000 x 50 000 = 2 500 000 000

Michel , When new people with the ability to vote see a negative vote it's like a question , now that somebody has shown the way do you agree ? , whereas if neutrality is observed the person doesn't notice as much that they are being asked , do you want to make a positive or negative vote ? Do you predict my past is on the way to haunt me ? - 75 this year , - 200 next , super bad - 500 before 2014 with a biased influence from a receding past ? Can I make a superpost to get 100 positive votes ? Will I challenge Newton's third law and risk immortal badness - 1 000 000 ?

You can't ask a plant like you can ask a human , is your tea too hot ? Abstraction breeds abstraction .

Swansont , If trawling through previous threads to reacquaint myself with the circumstances of the said suspension and expletive has to be done , I can do that . Those in the higher echelons of power , you included , have already told me not to argue with decisions that are made , which , AFAICT in the here and now , looks like some want to have their cake and eat it . The time when I offered to explain what occured has gone , I'll put it down to experience and try to post with more wisdom .

Michel , it takes you 13.8 posts to get a net effect of 1 positive reputation vote , it takes me 15.2 posts to get a net effect of 1 negative reputation vote . Your number of posts is to 1 decimal place , 4 times the number of posts of mine . Do you think that when I have 2000 posts I will have such a fine negative reputation as you have a positive reputation ? I don't . Most of the negativity happened in a few threads which I was on the opposing side of an argument to 5 - 10 people . This is beginners bad luck , or just natural argumentative nature , if I promised to pay a euro for each negative rep vote I'm sure I would be confirmed as very bad before too much more .

I wouldn't deny plants are green , plants are also red , purple , blue , yellow , white , etc . The reason a plant is green can be viewed as a simple matter of the wavelengths of green light travelling from the sun to your eye . Nothing absorbed ( absorbed as in filtered ) the green shades on the journey and your brain is tuned to interpret it .

When people print ink on a piece of paper they put such huge numbers of dots together that from a distance it is impossible to distinguish one colour from another and our overall view is the intended shade . We have been tricked . If we could zoom in on a green plant would we only see green ?

The light appearing on the surface of earth is not only made of shades of green wavelengths . The wavelengths of light not absorbed by the plant can be wavelengths other than those of green . The human eye is not only sensitive to wavelengths of green shades . So , if sunlight filtered of shades of green falls on the plant , that which is not absorbed by the plant and is also sensed by a human eye , would make a plant appear other than black .

Green is what we see , if we were not sensitive to green light we might see a different colour . When Nitrogen is varied in plant foods the shades of green of the plant also vary . Some plants I have are missing a little calcium in their diet and some of the normally green leaves look a little purple .

Just Google ' R ' and you are on the way . I'll suggest Scilab .