Dave

More likely, they have their own data file format which they won't release to the public.

Ah, I get it. It wants to know what f(x) could possibly look like so that the graph of |f(x)| looks the same. For example, you could have f(x) look exactly like the graph. Or, you could have the first "lump" below the x-axis with the second above the x-axis. Or...

Do you mean "possibilities are there for the graph of y = |f(x)|"?

For example, IE doesn't support most of the CSS selectors, and the only element it considers to have a :hover pseudo-class is <a> - rather annoying, to say the least.

No, there's no option to use this anymore. Frankly I'm not having any problems even on small monitors, but I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I did try to rejig the style to eradicate all of the rendering discrepancies, but obviously this hasn't worked for you. I'll look into it, since we did have some style problems earlier.

Not really. If you're writing documents then you might want to consider writing the entire thing using LaTeX, but other than that... I don't know

It's just the differential of V. [math]\frac{d}{dt}\left( \frac{\pi r^2 h}{3} \right) = \frac{\pi}{3} \frac{d}{dt} (r^2 h)[/math] Now, r and h are both functions of time, so you need to use the product rule: [math]\frac{d}{dt} (r^2 h) = h \frac{d}{dt}(r^2) + r^2 \frac{dh}{dt}[/math] To do [imath]\frac{d}{dt}(r^2)[/imath] you'll need to use implicit differentiation. If you haven't covered this yet, you'll need to learn that. But that's equal to [imath]2r \frac{dr}{dt}[/imath]. From there the rest follows.

I know the feeling Epsilon-delta proofs don't really seem like proofs, but once you start playing around with some examples it gets a lot easier. If you post some examples on here, then I'll try and answer them as well as I can (same for others), but it's really hard to try and teach someone a complete subject through the internet.

Indeed; that's the way it works. Spiders are designed to index as quickly as possible, and hence they just ignore any cookie information they get.

All they're basically saying is that h = h(t) and r = r(t), otherwise those derivatives would be zero. As for the LaTeX: a) Use the [imath] tags instead of [math] - it's used to generate inline math. For instance: I like [math]\frac{a}{b}[/math] as a fraction vs. I like [imath]\frac{a}{b}[/imath] as a fraction Either that, or you can use \tfrac instead of \frac. b) Use a combination of \left( and \right). So you can have something like: [math]\frac{dV}{dt}=\frac{\pi}{3} \left( r^2\frac{dh}{dt}+2rh\frac{dr}{dt} \right)[/math] (click to see code).

It makes me want to gouge my eyes out. Perhaps using various medical implements. I shan't bother posting mine, since I use the default Windows theme (yes, I'm boring )

I'm not entirely sure about that first one. I thought it said: [math]\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{1}{f(x)} = 0[/math] But [imath]\lim_{f(x) \to 0} \frac{1}{f(x)} = 0[/imath] is just like saying [imath]\lim_{y \to 0} \frac{1}{y} = 0[/imath] - this obviously isn't true, in fact the limit doesn't even exist at that point.

I was about to suggest the very same thing, but obviously you got there before me

You can use \cdot: [math]\lambda = h \cdot \frac{c}{e}[/math].

My eyes hurt

Yes, but my point was that you could easily just sum a load of 4/4's for any number. That kind of equation isn't particularly interesting

Well, it's never very difficult; you could just have [math]n = \sum_{1}^{n} \frac{4}{4}[/math]

It all depends on public consensus. If we see lots and lots of posts on the subject, then we might consider putting a forum up for it. But at the moment, we do have rather a lot of fora hanging around, and we try to be very selective on what we will and won't put up. For the time being, I would suggest either the Engineering forum or possibly General Sciences failing that.

You can never beat a piece of paper and a pen/pencil.

Don't know whether this will help, but sometimes it saves a bit of time. If G is a group with H a subset of G, then if you can prove the condition [imath]g, h \in H \Rightarrow gh^{-1} \in H[/imath], H is a subgroup. As I said, it's saved me some time in exams, so there we go

You're going to have to post some kind of problem with your version of the proof before we help out

Also, a quick rule that I'm going to impose: You must wait for at least 3 posts after your last one before you can post another. This stops the post whoring to a certain extent

I don't know whether this is a contradiction of the rules, but I don't care If [imath]\sigma(n)[/imath] is the sum of the divisors of n, then: [imath]\sigma\left(4! + (4-\frac{4}{4})! - \frac{4}{4}\right) = 30[/imath]

Looks good Note that you can use the LaTeX commands \sin and \cos to produce nice output: [math]y' = \cos(\sin(\sin x))\cos(\sin x)\cos x[/math]

Personally I've always been interested in neural nets, and using them for image recognition. I've never done any real work in the area (so I can't provide much more information) but it's a decent suggestion at least