Charlatan on mathematics

[Charlatan]

In a certain book i read and i quote :

 

"As in mechanics this work is defined by the integral.

 

 

W = [math]\int F.dl[/math].

 

where F is the component of the force acting in the direction of the displacement dl.In a differential form this equation is written.

 

 

δW = F.dl.

 

where δW represents a differential quantity of work"

 

Is that correct??

 

 

The integral is supposed to be the interconnecting thing between the two components. Seeing as how there is a problem, there must be a reltionship, or break down between the two, or three, and so forth, things.

 

The relationship is based on them being related to the problem. The problem is of coure that they need to be 'defined', first as wha they are, and then what they do together.

 

So, if you have two thingies that go together, and they react, te equation will show how they interact. If there was a reaction you will find it by using your 'mytical mathematics' on it. I cannot understand the 'tech', but common sense says that they need to mathematically react, leading to a physical problem.

 

But that isn't the problem. Your problem is that you want to find the the amount of force if you have the displacement, or, the displacement if you have the force. You could get iether with a practical experiment, so, if your exam leaves them out, please point out that for a real problem in life you would have the information on hand, and wouldn't need this poopy question.

 

Now, in real life, something that teachers and exam plotters don't use, you could say that the only thing you need maths for is planning a structure or a tool, maybe an engine, excsetera excetera... If you had all the stuff on hand then why do you need maths? Planning! So, if you have a practical with all the information, you should have both values on hand, leading to a definite sum. In real life they don't take chances, you test a component until it breaks, and so forth. You do not sit and guess what it might do! People could die or something!!!

 

So paper work is useless. All you need is like sixth grade maths or something. This stuff they feed you is rubbish! Practical rules, write the bloody information down for goodness sakes! Architecture and engineering is all you need that maths bull for, how does it help you in medicine, for example???

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The intergral is related to the force, yes, but it also makes the real world on paper. Planning what you think should happen still requires a test. In your exams you will provide blue prints for the real world. If you were to plan ahead you would find that it needs to be able to go into a cube formula for architecture and engineering, in other words three as a common denominator. If it does it works, if not it doesn't work. I suggest the number three because that is cubed, meaning it has the three dimensions and can physically exist. If it doesn;t go into three, it cannot exist, as the real world is based on the number three, not two, not vectors, and not four dimensions niether.

 

So tell your teacher that it needs to go into three if they are having problems marking this sort of stuff.

[D H]

I don't know what charlatan was babbling on about, triclino. [math]\partial W = \vec F \cdot d\vec l[/math] is correct. The only difference between what you wrote in the OP and what I just wrote about is that I am explicitly showing that [math]\vec F[/math] and [math]d\vec l[/math] are vectors.

[Charlatan]

I don't know what charlatan was babbling on about, triclino. [math]\partial W = \vec F \cdot d\vec l[/math] is correct. The only difference between what you wrote in the OP and what I just wrote about is that I am explicitly showing that [math]\vec F[/math] and [math]d\vec l[/math] are vectors.

 

Look here you crafty old wizard, if they both vectors the they don't have any influence in the real world or they go through lasers. Why calculate vectors? What can they do? If there are three of them, then they exist, if not...

[ajb]

Look here you crafty old wizard, if they both vectors the they don't have any influence in the real world or they go through lasers. Why calculate vectors? What can they do? If there are three of them, then they exist, if not...

 

You have completely lost me.

 

If you have any doubts about the usefulness of vectors then just pick up any book on kinematics or dynamics for example.

[the tree]

Why calculate vectors?

For the lulz? Why do you think that any mathematics gets done?

 

What can they do?

Represent anything that needs representing both in terms of magnitude and direction?

[Charlatan]

You have completely lost me.

 

If you have any doubts about the usefulness of vectors then just pick up any book on kinematics or dynamics for example.

 

Yes, that would be mixtures of them, like chemsitry, you need two to have a mixture, and anything by itself does not interact with anything. The problem is that vectors are artificial. If you were to look at a painting, that is two vectors, or square vectors.

 

If you were, by chance, a real long shot here, to take a dimension, can you exist in the first dimension? Second dimension? Yes we can make a two dimensional image, but that has depth whtether we agree or not, but really, we live in a three dimensional world, yes? Now we getting dangerous! If we were to take a image on a monitor, it also has three dimensions, as with out depth it would not exist, yes?

 

Ok, there is such a thing as a vector, but it cannot exist by itself. Seeig as how it cannot exist by itself there must be more ot than that. Single vectors can be shown, but they do not exist. Think of dimensions, they are all over the place interwoven with everything that we see or touch, even hear.

 

Now copmes the nitty gritty, how about sonics? They have one dimension, yes? If they were to have force pressed onto a object, they will react. If they were to effect reactions, they must exist, but, how many dimensions do they have? Only one! The have energy composed of one vecor multiplying outwards, and then they influence the rest of the carbons. Seeing as they effect carbons, but have no length, depth nor width, they simply are single vectors multiplied outwards by themselves.

 

Oh boy, where am I?

 

So, if we take a vector and multiply it by itself it is no longer a 'single celled' vector, but it is only one dimensional, as it has none of the physical things, but relays force.

 

Now, if you wanted to make a vector weapon, you would have to use sound, making it a sonic weapon. Army dealt with, bloody warmonger! If you were to use vectors in engineering you would be using sounds. Sounds make up matter and then they bond. This means you could make a cup of coffee out of sounds... I hope!

 

Then if you were to take sounds and bond them into carbons, it would require different sounds, so carbon bonding is like chemistry, sort of. If you were to look at matter it would leave it to the vectors, which in their simplest form are sounds, being non dimensional, yet existing. They relay force, but this is not physicalism, it is more like... well... psionics?

 

Now, if you were to take the energy, all carbons are made out of 'energy' that is 'static', compounds are made of 'static energy' that have bonded. So, seeing as how sounds is energy that is 'fluid', you could trap the sounds inside a container and give them 'substance' by cooling it, as it is energy and energy is heat based. If you were to condence it you would have lots of options for using it, by capturing it. If you were to capture it by reflecting it, you could take a material that is sound resistant, maybe a three vector object, and then apply the vector to it, making it a four dimesnional object?

 

That would mean that we can observe the fourth dimension, or a lucid third dimension, by applying a 'one dimensional force' onto a three dimensional object, yes?

 

The only single vector thingies are sounds, or you show me how?

[ajb]

You are just talking rubbish. You don't seem to have a grasp of the idea of mathematical constructions and their applications in the physical sciences. You are mixing the idea of some construction being well-founded, i.e the mathematical existence of vector spaces or even the selection of a specified vector on a vector space and the notion of placing physical significance upon such constructions.

 

The name Charlatan seems adapt. I suspect all you want to do is muddy the waters with your nonsense and troll.

[triclino]

Charlatan ,is Table mountain still there??

[Charlatan]

For the lulz? Why do you think that any mathematics gets done?

 

Represent anything that needs representing both in terms of magnitude and direction?

 

Conceeded.

[the tree]

You don't seem to have a grasp of the idea of mathematical constructions and their applications in the physical sciences.

Just to point it out, applied maths does extend beyond physics. Vector calculus is an important element of quantitative biology, biochemistry and even economics. (not that mathematics needs to be applied in order to be worthy of study)

[Charlatan]

Just to point it out, applied maths does extend beyond physics. Vector calculus is an important element of quantitative biology, biochemistry and even economics. (not that mathematics needs to be applied in order to be worthy of study)

 

Don't goad me into a rebuttal, or, could it be another dose of submission you want?

[the tree]

Urm... neither? Those just are things that vector calc is used for.

[Charlatan]

If we were to apply vectors in maths and biological stuffies and economics - things they would not work out well - then they never go beyond diagrams. Use a vector in maths? Up that! You see you would need to use the specific vector to add up to a object, never used in calculations, as it is dependant on the other vectors, so, you will be working with at least two of them, probably three.

 

To see the stuff that you talk of requires three vectors, except for diagrams, which only need two. This must, yes, must, mean that they will be exactly the same as the other vectors in the formula making up the carbon density or whatever. If they were to exist call them length, depth or width. But halt your beating heart, they are called vectors and include some stuff you could mess up with the formula. Great Stuff...

 

I say we call it what it is and forget about the vectors. If there was another name for the symbol 3, then it would be more complicated as it reqquires a new formula, not one plus two or something.

 

Now, if we were to take the dimensions we could find the answer quickly. I have no idea what a vector formula is, but it is far more complicated and leads to more room for error and less understanding.

 

So, if you were to eleiminate the vectors and recast the formula, it would be better. You need three vecotrs, and they are presented by simple formula. If you were to use three vectors, and you have mass, then carbon density, you could do it quicker, guaranteed. Stuff vectors!

 

If we are going to go futher we need to tie our wrists together and grab some small knives with our other hands... Yeah!

[the tree]

If we were to apply vectors in maths and biological stuffies and economics - things they would not work out well

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that it'd fail to create sufficient accurate predictive models? That the Lotka–Volterra equations don't work?

 

then they never go beyond diagrams.

It is rarely necessary to diagram anything, and particularly in economics there are often too many factors involved for it to be sketched easily.

 

Use a vector in maths? Up that! You see you would need to use the specific vector to add up to a object, never used in calculations, as it is dependant on the other vectors, so, you will be working with at least two of them, probably three.

Three vectors? Generally in applied maths you're going to be working with a dense vector field, that is over a bounded space you're talking about uncountably infinite vectors. You'd pick out individual cases for individual initial conditions but even then you'd want a series of results over a time span which would practically mean calculations in the hundreds or thousands.

 

I say we call it what it is and forget about the vectors. If there was another name for the symbol 3, then it would be more complicated as it reqquires a new formula, not one plus two or something.

Rⁿ cannot be indexed with R. You cannot do all that much with just lone numbers.

 

Now, if we were to take the dimensions we could find the answer quickly.

Dimensional Analysis? Not really related.

 

I have no idea what a vector formula is, but it is far more complicated and leads to more room for error and less understanding.

1. You seem awfully opinoinated on something that you don't know what it is.
   
2. It's not really all that complicated, I mean, it gets complicated once you work with the really advanced stuff but it's all do-able and trained mathematicians are always avaliable.
   
3. Working on problems that are tradiationally aproached with vector calc, without vectors is far more complicated.
   

[Fuzzwood]

Trying to beat the Turing test are we?

[ajb]

- things they would not work out well - then they never go beyond diagrams.

 

As my old supervisor once remarked "Life is rarely just diagrams".

 

He was of course talking about the use of category theory in other branches of mathematics.

 

Use a vector in maths? Up that!

 

I use vectors regularly, so do many many other people to no ill effect (LOL)

 

 

The rest of the post is nonsense.