studiot

Do you not use a computer?

Why so? And that also begs the question what is real? We had a long discussion about that here recently. Before it was built, was the Sydney Harbour Bridge real? And did the designers have any knowledge of it, at that pre construction time? Or how about Hogwarts., Narnia or The Shire? Hundreds of millions of people have knowledge of these fictitious places.

Perhaps you would like to explain your calculation, including defining your terms and stating what laws you are invoking.

Because that was proven over two thousand years ago by the ancient Greeks. It is considered an elementary proof in number theory. There is no 'perhaps' about it.

See post#4 here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84417-boolean-equation-truth-table/

I didn't know that, thank you Acme. +1

The set of all real numbers between 0 and 1 is bounded below by 0 and bounded above by 1; it is limited. Is this set finite or infinite? Is the x axis finite or infinite? Yet the x axis does not include any numbers on the y axis and neither include any numbers that are in the quadrants between the axes. You need a better definition of infinite.

You got it. Can you write it out formally as an solution now? Edit I would have thought you could have used Paint to draw something as simple as that triangle for upload, if you don't have a scanner/camera.

I've no idea what I am to make of your link to a korean boy band. There is a difference between being unlimited and encompassing everything.

And where, pray, do you obtain your 1volt potential difference, if not from other charges?

Worse, in fact it is not even an equation, despite the equals sign.

OK it was a bit tricky with your description. To help you in the future, here is a statement of you diagram. Draw triangle XYZ with base YZ and vertex X Position P on XY such that XP:PY = 2:3 Draw PQ through P parallel to YZ, to intersect XZ in Q Now what about my questions designed to help? Have you looked up the similar triangle areas theorem?

So far as I'm aware, there has never been a formula for charge, equivalent to E=mc2 for mass, relating charge to energy. An electric charge only has energy by virtue of its interaction with another electric charge or charges. A mass has intrinsic energy by virtue of its mass.

Can't agree with that. There set of integers is infinite, yet it does not contain an infinite amount of other non integer numbers. Saying there are things unknown or I don't know is no barrier to there being an infinite set of knowledge, separable from other infinite sets of other knowledge. You have already pointed out that is the nature of infinity.

Did you forget to write your own text after pasting in the quotes?

Barfbag, Since you were interested in my last post (#16) I will expand. Firstly the quote as I remember it was due to the builder of one of the NewYork bridges and went An Engineer is someone who can build (make) something for $1 that any fool can build (make) for $2. Which is different from barely standing. As to bridges and their design, the bridge has the longest formal design life of anything made by Man. This design life is 120 years, though some have stood for more than ten times that. When an engineer designs a structure she considers a great many other factors besides what is known as 'The limit state of collapse'. A structural design is judged against a set of limit states to provide "A quantifiable and acceptably low probability of failure against any of these criteria" This method replaced the older 'factor of safety method' of design. Statistics plays an important part in the design. I will explain further if you like. Anyway the most usual failure for structures is not collapse, although that does unfortunately happen as in Tacoma Narrow and Lodden Vaiduct, but failure of what is known as the "limit state of servicability" This means that although the structure does not fall down or become unsafe, the deflection under design load is excessive. A good recent example was the London 'wobbly bridge' that was too flexible https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=london+wobbly+bridge+video&gbv=2&oq=london+wobbly+bridge&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l2j0i22i30l3.828.5594.0.10703.20.18.0.2.2.0.265.2845.0j7j7.14.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..4.16.2922.MoPMxhmZDOk One main purpose of the limit state of servicability is to limit deflection in floors/ceilings so that finishings such as plaster or tiling does not crack.

Relative, I expect this thread will end shortly but please take these thoughts with you to your next question. They are meant in a kind and helpful way to improve your future experiences. Even Strange is not 100% right 100% of the time. But you seem to think you are never wrong. When the discussion gets too difficult you change the subject. That is why you think that no one can understand you. Because they are thinking about the last thing you said, whereas you are thinking about the next thing you are going to say. That is an incredible barrier to communication. So two questions. When was the last time you accepted you were wrong here at SF? How many times have you changed the subject in this thread? All the best in the future.

String Junky Yes, engineers understand quantitatively the limits of the properties of the materials available to them. @String Junky Sometimes. Hopefully more often than not. @Inigo Montoya Having done some failure investigations in my time I have little sympathy for an Engineer who designs a bridge that barely stands. Such a bridge would not satisfy any code that I know of.

But that the original question was not as to whether any body or collection of bodies, human or otherwise, knows this knowledge. The title question was is knowledge infinte? I maintain that since I can add 1 to any number chosen I have access to an infinity of numbers. Therefore there is an infinity of knowledge available, whether I know it or not.

Well said +1

1) Is this your diagram? 2) Why do you think you need the length of XQ? 3) What is the relationship between the areas of similar triangles? : If you don't know look it up. 4) What is your strategy for solving this?

This is true, though I prefer 'means of recording'.

I'm glad you are thinking about that because one of the challenges in numerical mathematics has always been performing larger calculations than will fit into the available computing 'machine' in one go. It is perfectly possible to perform a 20 digit calculation on an 8 digit machine if you know how to divide up the calculation. This can be extended to 'n' digits.

Acceleration is a vector quantity. What I was trying to do was to get you to understand what you were doing so that you could present it in an appropriate way. The final arithmetic is trivial. So if N is the Normal reaction and F the frictional force The mass of 75kg is accelerating down a 25 degree slope. Resolving acceleration perpendicular to the slope Mass x acceleration = 75 x 0 = 75gcos25 - N by Newton’s second Law (Often called N2) Resolving parallel to the slope Mass x acceleration = 75 x 3.6 = 75gsin25 - F by N2 This allows you to properly calculate [math]{\mu _k}[/math] and has the advantage that if you make a mistake you have shown the examiner you know what you are doing so will gain all the available method marks If you work this correctly you will note something interesting about the mass, which means that you do not need to calculate the actual values of the forces. You should get an equation [math]{\rm{acceleration}}[/math] = [math]g\sin \theta [/math] - [math]{\mu _k}g\cos \theta [/math] ie independent of the mass. What value did you make the coefficient of friction? Interestingly this equation also tells us that for the body to slide down the slope [math]\sin \theta [/math] > [math]{\mu _k}\cos \theta [/math] If on the other hand [math]\sin \theta [/math] < [math]{\mu _k}\cos \theta [/math] Then the body will not move. Further the frictional force will be [math]mg\sin \theta [/math] Which is less than the frictional force when moving. That is the full limiting friction is not developed.

This is not favouritism. One practitioner of Mainstream science will (or should) also always ask for evidence from another as well as from others.