Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Let's learn how to find the area of a rectangle!
  • Subject: Let's learn how to find the area of a rectangle!
Subject: Let's learn how to find the area of a rectangle!

"Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth."
-Archimedes

Half-Life Universe
Secular Sevens
Posted by: Soviet Revival
the only thing philosophical about this thread is mister math.


Posted by: drummer0702
lol what a terrible way to go about a math or science course.
Psh, everyone knows that if a conjecture is really really obvious it doesn't need to be proved.

  • 12.10.2010 1:02 PM PDT

i c u thar c' ing my signiture

Yours in _Kai_

Area of a rectangle: Length x Width

/thread

PS: HURP DERP!

  • 12.10.2010 1:04 PM PDT

"Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth."
-Archimedes

Half-Life Universe
Secular Sevens
Posted by: Soviet Revival
the only thing philosophical about this thread is mister math.


Posted by: arch4ng13
Area of a rectangle: Length x Width

/thread

PS: HURP DERP!
I don't believe you, I think it's 2l+2w. Prove my wrong, I dare you.

  • 12.10.2010 1:05 PM PDT

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
-Nietzsche

Posted by: arch4ng13
Area of a rectangle: Length x Width
Yes, that is the conclusion that I drew. Thank you for summarizing :)

  • 12.10.2010 1:05 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Did you just use an integral of a parametric curve to prove that L*W=A for a rectangle? Sounds a bit unnecessary lol.

Isn't your integral off? The formula for the surface area of a parametric curve is:

2pi * integral [ g (t) * sqrt ( f ' (t) ^ 2 + g ' (t) ^ 2 ) ] dt


Unless you're doing something else, which is probably the case.

[Edited on 12.10.2010 1:10 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 1:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Mister Math
I don't believe you, I think it's 2l+2w. Prove my wrong, I dare you.


lol. How are you defining l and w :P Because that would be accurate if your rectangle was centered on the origin and l was the distance from the axis to the side.

  • 12.10.2010 1:07 PM PDT

Imma musician and things :3

DOWNLOAD MY MUSIC

Posted by: Mister Math
Posted by: arch4ng13
Area of a rectangle: Length x Width

/thread

PS: HURP DERP!
I don't believe you, I think it's 2l+2w. Prove my wrong, I dare you.
Not sure if serious...

  • 12.10.2010 1:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: BSS Lazer
Wow. You used so many unnecessary symbols to find the area of a rectangle. Well done.


It's called being a self-righteous, tool. People like to do that to feel intelligent, and to act superior.

Area of a circle is base times width. Simple.

  • 12.10.2010 1:08 PM PDT

"Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth."
-Archimedes

Half-Life Universe
Secular Sevens
Posted by: Soviet Revival
the only thing philosophical about this thread is mister math.


Posted by: drummer0702
Posted by: Mister Math
I don't believe you, I think it's 2l+2w. Prove my wrong, I dare you.


lol. How are you defining l and w :P Because that would be accurate if your rectangle was centered on the origin and l was the distance from the axis to the side.
Sh, I'm trying to convince him that proofs are important!
Posted by: dip for chips
Posted by: BSS Lazer
Wow. You used so many unnecessary symbols to find the area of a rectangle. Well done.


It's called being a self-righteous, tool. People like to do that to feel intelligent, and to act superior.

Area of a circle is base times width. Simple.
Typo?

[Edited on 12.10.2010 1:08 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 1:08 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Mister Math
It's called being a self-righteous, tool. People like to do that to feel intelligent, and to act superior.

Area of a circle is base times width. Simple.[/quote]Typo?


Maybe it was ironic?

  • 12.10.2010 1:10 PM PDT


Posted by: Disambiguation
Posted by: BSS Lazer

Posted by: Disambiguation
Posted by: DaGingaNinja
A=L*H

/thread
Prove it.

It doesn't need proved. Everyone over the age of 10 knows this.
Because some hack of a teacher with a B.A. told you so?
No, because one of the best mathimaticians in Victoria who writes the textbooks for most schools told me.

  • 12.10.2010 1:10 PM PDT

"Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth."
-Archimedes

Half-Life Universe
Secular Sevens
Posted by: Soviet Revival
the only thing philosophical about this thread is mister math.


Posted by: Elite_Buddy

Posted by: Disambiguation
Posted by: BSS Lazer

Posted by: Disambiguation
Posted by: DaGingaNinja
A=L*H

/thread
Prove it.

It doesn't need proved. Everyone over the age of 10 knows this.
Because some hack of a teacher with a B.A. told you so?
No, because one of the best mathimaticians in Victoria who writes the textbooks for most schools told me.
If he told you 0.999... =/= 1 without proof would you believe him?

  • 12.10.2010 1:14 PM PDT

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
-Nietzsche

Posted by: Lies
Did you just use an integral of a parametric curve to prove that L*W=A for a rectangle?
I sure did!

Isn't your integral off? The formula for the surface area of a parametric curve is:

2pi * integral [ g (t) * sqrt ( f ' (t) ^ 2 + g ' (t) ^ 2 ) ] dt
That's something different.

  • 12.10.2010 1:15 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

Yeah, I admit I'm not great at calculus. I only took it because it's required for comp sci majors, glad that's over. One time my professor showed how to turn a repeating decimal into a fraction using an infinite series and then finding what it converged to, I was just like lol wtf.

  • 12.10.2010 1:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Lies
Yeah, I admit I'm not great at calculus. I only took it because it's required for comp sci majors, glad that's over. One time my professor showed how to turn a repeating decimal into a fraction using an infinite series and then finding what it converged to, I was just like lol wtf.


Ya I never need to know that -blam!- for Engineering. The only useful stuff in Calc was derivative, integral, Taylor series, and that stuff.

  • 12.10.2010 1:20 PM PDT

Posted by: Mister Math

Posted by: Elite_Buddy

No, because one of the best mathimaticians in Victoria who writes the textbooks for most schools told me.
If he told you 0.999... =/= 1 without proof would you believe him?
Well, I'm presuming you're trying to write the doesn't equal sign, so yes. Because 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1. It's as close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1 though.

Also: Evidence=Get a rectangle which is already measured in cm. Measure the sides. Do the LxW. Then, get a heap of cubic centimetre cubes, and 'tile' them on the square and count them. You should have the same ammount as LxW.


Also, would you believe your teacher for that formula? How do you know that a k looks like this: K How do you know that that is spelt: that?


Your logic is flawed.

  • 12.10.2010 1:25 PM PDT

Six years ago when I was raping calc 2 in my sleep as a frosh, I would have understood this. I should have stuck with math. :(

  • 12.10.2010 1:26 PM PDT

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
-Nietzsche

Posted by: Elite_Buddy
Posted by: Mister Math

Posted by: Elite_Buddy

No, because one of the best mathimaticians in Victoria who writes the textbooks for most schools told me.
If he told you 0.999... =/= 1 without proof would you believe him?
Well, I'm presuming you're trying to write the doesn't equal sign, so yes. Because 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1. It's as close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1 though.

Also: Evidence=Get a rectangle which is already measured in cm. Measure the sides. Do the LxW. Then, get a heap of cubic centimetre cubes, and 'tile' them on the square and count them. You should have the same ammount as LxW.
Yet there exists multiple rigorous mathematical proofs that 0.999... does in fact equal 1. It stems from that fact that there are no infinitesimal quantities in the real numbers. "As close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1" is still 1.

  • 12.10.2010 1:28 PM PDT

lolnope.


Posted by: Hank
You're not as cool as Mister Math.


Agreed. I love how some of the "higher up" members have been quite intimidated by his intelligence lately though...

  • 12.10.2010 1:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Disambiguation
Well, I'm presuming you're trying to write the doesn't equal sign, so yes. Because 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1. It's as close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1 though.

Also: Evidence=Get a rectangle which is already measured in cm. Measure the sides. Do the LxW. Then, get a heap of cubic centimetre cubes, and 'tile' them on the square and count them. You should have the same ammount as LxW.[/quote] Yet there exists multiple rigorous mathematical proofs that 0.999... does in fact equal 1. It stems from that fact that there are no infinitesimal quantities in the real numbers. "As close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1" is still 1.


It's funny because he proved Mister Math's point.

Off topic- You really made me want to type out the derivation for the Navier-Stokes Equation...

  • 12.10.2010 1:29 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: Dark Martyr 117
Agreed. I love how some of the "higher up" members have been quite intimidated by his intelligence lately though...


It's funny how you don't realize we have much more math experience then he does. (No offense)

  • 12.10.2010 1:30 PM PDT

"Give me a place to stand, and I will move the Earth."
-Archimedes

Half-Life Universe
Secular Sevens
Posted by: Soviet Revival
the only thing philosophical about this thread is mister math.


Posted by: Elite_Buddy
Well, I'm presuming you're trying to write the doesn't equal sign, so yes. Because 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1. It's as close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1 though.
The set of reals (or rationals, for that matter) is dense, FYI. This means there is ALWAYS a number between any two numbers you can pick; therefore, there is no number that is as close to 1 as possible without being 1. If they are distinct numbers, there will be an infinite amount of numbers between them. Also, analytic proofs suggest that even if you could have 1 - w where w is infinitesimal, this number still would not be represented by 0.999..., and 0.999... would still equal 1.

Also: Evidence=Get a rectangle which is already measured in cm. Measure the sides. Do the LxW. Then, get a heap of cubic centimetre cubes, and 'tile' them on the square and count them. You should have the same ammount as LxW.Not proof. That only proves it works for that one rectangle; however, there are an uncountably infinite amount of rectangles.


Also, would you believe your teacher for that formula? How do you know that a k looks like this: K How do you know that that is spelt: that?


Your logic is flawed.
People define language. Everywhere I have gone K looks like K, and ''that'' is spelled t-h-a-t. Mathematics, however, has to be proven.
Posted by: Dark Martyr 117

Posted by: Hank
You're not as cool as Mister Math.


Agreed. I love how some of the "higher up" members have been quite intimidated by his intelligence lately though...
For your information, Disambiguation has a much higher breadth and depth of mathematical knowledge than I.

[Edited on 12.10.2010 1:32 PM PST]

  • 12.10.2010 1:31 PM PDT

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
-Nietzsche

Posted by: Dark Martyr 117

Posted by: Hank
You're not as cool as Mister Math.

Agreed. I love how some of the "higher up" members have been quite intimidated by his intelligence lately though...
Mister Math, myself and a handful of others are all members of an elite secret society of mathematicians, engineers and scientists.

  • 12.10.2010 1:31 PM PDT


Posted by: Disambiguation
Posted by: Elite_Buddy
Posted by: Mister Math

Posted by: Elite_Buddy

No, because one of the best mathimaticians in Victoria who writes the textbooks for most schools told me.
If he told you 0.999... =/= 1 without proof would you believe him?
Well, I'm presuming you're trying to write the doesn't equal sign, so yes. Because 0.9 recurring is not equal to 1. It's as close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1 though.

Also: Evidence=Get a rectangle which is already measured in cm. Measure the sides. Do the LxW. Then, get a heap of cubic centimetre cubes, and 'tile' them on the square and count them. You should have the same ammount as LxW.
Yet there exists multiple rigorous mathematical proofs that 0.999... does in fact equal 1. It stems from that fact that there are no infinitesimal quantities in the real numbers. "As close as you can get to 1 without getting to 1" is still 1.
By using your brain and coming to a conclusion, you will always be a tiny fraction off one.

You know what, -blam!- it. You're being an ignorant bigot.

  • 12.10.2010 1:32 PM PDT