User talk:Strangealibi

hey corey, i got your message about the futurama episode. next time put it in the comments section, (not that its a big deal). i added a link to That's Lobstertainment! on the Sticks nix hick pix page, and a reference to the relation in the episode. also, looking back through my user page's edits, i noticed you moved the mathie tag from the left to the right, did you add the tag too? im not sure how i missed all that. also, i was going to send you this over aim: Lewis Black on Health (hopefully that link will work). i dont think i ever played this for you, but his bit about milk is something i think youd find funny. --Quietly 09:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for the uncalled-for drivel remark. However, the article as it was presented was not even written in sentences. If you don't want the article to be assessed, keep it in Word or whatever until its ready. There is nothing to stop you reposting in a more complete version, with suitable demonstration of notability. jimfbleak 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Key-Wallace

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article James Key-Wallace, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to your question

well, itd be right i think if it were {2x-5>11 and x+3<20} for the answers given. otherwise the answer should just be x<8. probably just a typo though? for some reason im always really cautious with such simple things... i feel like its a trap or something. Quietly 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after goofing around with the algebra in mathematica for a while, and failing miserably, i finally figured out how to enter it to have the program solve it, and yeah, it gave me answers of 8 and -8. why that is, i dont really know... although i suppose you should just be able to solve the system of equations for x and y, and then find their difference... that of course shows more understanding of whats going on than what i did.

entering this: ${\text{Solve}}\left[\left\{x^{2}+y^{2}==100,x*y==18,g==x-y\right\},g\right]$

gave this: $\{\{g\to -8\},\{g\to -8\},\{g\to 8\},\{g\to 8\}\}$

then i substituted and solved for $x$ again: ${\text{Solve}}\left[\left\{x^{2}+(x-8)^{2}==100,x*(x-8)==18\right\},x\right]$

giving: $\left\{\left\{x\to 4-{\sqrt {34}}\right\},\left\{x\to 4+{\sqrt {34}}\right\}\right\}$

i suppose when you solve for $y$ you get the same thing as for $x$ , and taking their difference, the roots probably cancel out and you must have either 4-(-4) or -4-4. where are you getting these questions from? --Quietly 17:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive reinvestigated the problem, (as an aside to doing actual work, like finding a job or consolidating my loans), and i think with a little algebra it becomes a quartic equation, and even more specifically, a biquadratic equation, which is solvable, fairly easily, if you look at it. i think it does have real solutions also. i used maple to generate some plots too, which can be seen here hopefully. also, i just worked it out by hand and im getting pretty close to the answer, i already have the sqrt(34) part. --Quietly 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

curvature

i had a similar problem with the notion of curvature Ockle taught in calc 3, and i asked him about it. i told Ockle that it seemed to me that all circles should have equal curvature, since ultimately each one is geometrically similar. i dont remember exactly, but i want to say that he called that 'absolute curvature', though googling that term on wikipedia finds nothing, so im probably wrong. the key to the definition of curvature that we learned in calc 3 is that it relies on the velocity vector. which would make scale matter. suddenly moving along a small circle means turning a lot more rapidly than a much larger circle at the same speed. and yeah, if you looked at a very small segment, it will appear to flatten out, but obviously when measuring at an infinitesimal point we could still have a notion of curvature... it would be related to the second derivative of the point, right? i really enjoyed those ideas in calc 3, of velocity and acceleration vectors, and Ockle told me that if i wanted to know more about the study of curvature i could try taking an independent study with him on differential geometry, but i never ended up getting a chance to do that. Quietly (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]