Dave

I would say harder. Different programming languages have different applications. For instance, I wouldn't go and write a webpage in Fortran 90 or write a high-end application in TCL. But they both have their appropriate uses in different places, and I think that trying to incorporate everything into one big language would be a mistake.

Don't get what you're trying to do here. The program's just a simple linked-list program, and you need to actually write the unlink() function (I presume). Need more detail on what you're expected to do here. You also need to indent your code. I edited your post to put code tags around the appropriate bits so that they display better.

Unfortunately photos aren't much evidence to charge somebody with. She could be snorting any generic white powder, be it ground up polo mints or crack.

Haven't checked it, but probably partial fractions.

Bah. I can see I'm going to have to sort this out.

FYI, there was a complete thread on this here.

I'll look into that. Don't think it's a problem. Fair enough. A lot of this is to do with vB, and it can be pretty tricky to move it in some cases. I agree with this one. I just haven't had the time to figure something else out. The reason I added it in the first place is because people specifically requested it. You can still access the new posts link, it's just inside the menu. No, I'll remove that. No harm in having it. That can be changed It allows you to quote the post without explicitly putting it in the box (assuming you check the option). It's up to personal preference, I suppose Well, it's just an extra feature. Doesn't mean it won't necessarily used in future. Allows you to traverse the threads easily. If it's popular enough Same answer. I use it quite a lot of the time, after I read through a thread. Would cause the text to wrap-around probably; it'd make it look pretty ugly. We don't, really. It's just I haven't removed the redundant stuff yet.

I read this and tried to remember to fix it, but promptly forgot. The reason for this apparent oversight is because in order to pass the string to the JavaScript function, all the backslashes have to be double backslashed (otherwise it reads it as a control sequence, which is obviously not what I want). I used the same in the title/alt because I'm lazy and forgot

Ack, not upgrades - when you see the long list of mods that have to be installed, you'd be tempted not to upgrade as well Personally I think it's probably best to wait until 3.5 comes out. The new plugin/callback system looks pretty cool. (lo sayo by the way)

Good point

To get a sum strictly less than 4 (i.e. 2 or 3), there are 3 possible combinations. You could get two 1's, a 2 and a 1, or a 1 and a 2. Anything over than this leads to a sum of at least 4. These events all carry the same probability (1/36), so your probability should be 1 - 3/36 = 33/36.

Fairy fluff. I need to learn to read

Yes, sorry about that. It's been rather busy with getting back to uni and all that. I believe blike's looking into the entire staff thing atm, so I guess we'll see what he comes up with.

No problem.

Wrong way around [imath]\vec{i} = (1,0,0), \vec{j} = (0,1,0), \vec{k} = (0,0,1)[/imath]. k is the symbol denoted for the z-axis unit vector.

Well, no. That's certainly a definite integral. I've never been taught improper integrals explicitly so I'm taking my definition from MathWorld.

The problem is that at higher levels, geometry and algebra are very greatly intertwined. For example, the study of quadratic forms and their associated shapes is closely linked to bilinear forms and the various algebraic goodness that goes along with it. Having said that, at your age I much prefered algebra to geometry - re-arranging equations was so much simpler

That's certainly the way I would do it. Epsilons and deltas are the way to go

I always thought that an improper integral is one defined with one or both limits set to [imath]\infty[/imath]? (i.e. [imath]\int_a^{\infty} f \, dx[/imath] or whatever).

This just about sums up my feelings on the thread. I'd also ask for a bit of calm, please. There's absolutely no need for personal insults on these forums. I know that some people may find the subject rather infuriating (I know I do), but that's no reason to fire off at someone. Thanks.

It depends what you want to do with them - I'm not sure why you'd want to multiply them anyway tbh. The cross product will simply give you a vector orthogonal to the two you're crossing.

Moved to GD.

Presumably once you'd got some sort of greenhouse gases and the temperature rising, the water beneath the surface would start to melt, maybe even enough to get some rudimentary oceans back again. Nothing stopping us from carting over a load of water anyway, especially if we had a moon colony for an easy staging platform.

So basically, you're asking for the uses of the dot product Its main use is obviously checking for orthogonality. Other than that, I've seen it used in loads of other things. One of the more interesting uses is for things like line integrals. Less interesting uses are to do purely with notation, i.e. in conjuction with the nabla operator: [math]\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x}, \frac{\partial}{\partial y}, \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right) \cdot (v_1, v_2, v_3) = \frac{\partial v_1}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial v_2}{\partial y} + \frac{\partial v_3}{\partial z}[/math] This is called the divergence. From a less practical standpoint, you can find other functions with the same properties as the dot product (called inner products) and build inner product spaces from them. So in all, they're fairly interesting to study purely from a research point of view. But from a vector calculus standpoint, orthogonality is their biggest application.

I wouldn't have thought so. The influx of users would have to be accompanied by those users linking to your sites, or by running some sort of advertisements.