 |
|   | Subject: Correction:
Posted Jan 28, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 321
|
lol
deano you may be an utter boff at school learning lots of ridiculously hard and ultimatly usless things but as far as understanding smileys goes you should be in a thickie class with a load of five year olds who are incapable to spell 'a'
means being cheeky or joking
as i put a at the end of that i was being cheeky and JOKING OK
i know perfectly well you are boy wonder, well u seem to think so anyway
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Jan 28, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 322
|
i think i'll claim the moral victory - i didn't resort to cheap b*tching!!!
No, but you still called it cheap.
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Jan 29, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 324
|
lol
you've got an answer to everything lizzy 
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Jan 31, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 325
|
except:
(the square root of -1) to the power of four.
answer... i know it....
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 1, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 326
|
apparently that is a mathematical error
so therefore you know the answer to an impossable question...
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 3, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 327
|
well you see fraeya, you will one day learn that calculators are not the be all and end all of maths. it is like if you try putting in 99! (factorial). it will say maths error or some error. however, there is an answer, its just damn big.
now the answer to this problem takes you down the road of possible the most complex strand of maths - known as 'complex' numbers.
Now obviously we have the numbers that we know and love, from 0 upwards through 1, 2, 3, etc. etc, and downward through -1, -2, -3. However, there is a realm of numbers that do not technically exist, but can be used mathematically.
as you should know, any number, positive or negative, squared, will have a positive answer. therefore, the square root of a negative answer will not be possible - there are no numbers that have a negative answer when squared.
this idea is brought into complex maths. Supposing there is a number such as this, what properties would it have.
thus, the complex number, {square root of(-1)} was given the name 'i'.
now the interesting part:
if you square the {square root of (x)}, then obviously the answer will be 'x'.
in the same way, if you square 'i', which is the {square root of (-1)}, then the answer will be -1.
now to work out 'i' cubed, then you have to multiply 'i' squared, -1, by 'i'.
thus -1 times 'i', which is obviously '-i'.
Now the answer to my question, which was [i to the power of 4]:
this will be '-i' multiplied by 'i'.
we know already that 'i' times 'i' = -1, so therfore 'i' times '-i' is simply -['i' times 'i'] => -(-1)
===> 1.
there - simple answer.
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 4, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 328
|
right then.....
i think the weirdest thing in that lot is that you actually KOW all that, worrying very worrying
my maths teacher said something last year about impossible numbers is that the same thing?
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 4, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 329
|
*know
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 7, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 330
|
yeh probably... they're called 'complex' or 'non-existant' or 'impossible' numbers - all based around 'i'.
nice to know u actually read it!
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 7, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 331
|
yeah i read it i didnt actually UNDERSTAND it but... well its maths isnt it and btw
INVERSE PROPORTION IS COMPLETLY AND UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!
i have decided this from having to do a whole page of them and not getting a single one right
i dont know why i am in set 2 i should be in set 12
Here comes Deano's explanation of inverse proportion the difficult way... Don't worry, I never really got them either, Fraeya and I came out of my exam with a B.
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 9, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 333
|
well done
i was kind of hoping tfor a simpple explaination actually but since i checked in my textbook and found i had been doing them the right way all the time i dont see how deano can really explain it so i'll understand lol
i have just had what i think ranks as the second worst maths test i have ever taken. i got halfway through i wasnt sure on any of them and i was in a room with a load of idiot boys who kept mucking about the entire time *rolls eyes*
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 10, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 334
|
boys doings what they do best then!
in biology today we turned 7 people's bags inside out, and sent them baack to them!!!
classic.
and inverse proportions are very simply if you just follow the rule;
inverse proportion of (x) = 1 / [(k) times (x)], where 'k' is just a random number than makes it work.
so you just do 1 / (x), and then multiply the bottom of every bit by a number, so that they all work.
i realise that will be no help, but it makes sense to me! good luck... have you had your mock? oh no, your not in my year... oh well... its well easy - you need 50% for a B, or something ridiculous like that...
aim for an A - 65%, even if u don't understand it all.
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 11, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 335
|
wow deano ur absolutly right that was no help lol
oh well we didnt get a single question on it in the end of units...no actually we got an inverse AND square at the same time, to which my answer was stuff that and i went on to the next question ...
oh well
and if the boundries are that low it would explain how come i managed to get an A in the last one of these we did. but judgeing from the tuesday one i'll probably get about an E
Awwwwwwww cheer up Fraeya. Go to the revision sessions, try using bitesize (Which I found very good!) and keep working at it and you'll get there.
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 16, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 337
|
thanks
woohhoo my cat's just managed to get the size of the font on the internet back to normal yay, i was just about to find a magnifying glass...
How do you do it? My font's huge and it's doing my head in!
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 22, 2004 by Fraeya
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 339
|
hang on i'll just ask my cat...no hes not saying anything. i dont have a clue how he did it he was walking on the keyboard and then it suddenly went back to normal
| | Subject: Correction:
Posted Feb 28, 2004 by DJR
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 340
|
wow, he must be a genius cat!
it was all really big on mine for a while too, but then one day it just corrected itself...
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
