Mathematics desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 17

parabolica

Is the word parabolica a real word i.e. a derivative of parabola (geometry)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.26.193 (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective parabolic is parabolica in some languages; it can be transliterated Classical Greek, Latin, and Italian (see, e.g., Traiettoria parabolica). With an accent like this: parabólica, it is Spanish (Castilian), while parabòlica is Catalan. It is not a common English word. --Lambiam 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anothere example of Italian usage is the "Parabolica" bend at the Monza Grand Prix circuit - bend 9 on this diagram. Gandalf61 09:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an artistic use - such as a abstract quadratic sculptor's exhibition of 'parabolica' cf eclectica etc87.102.79.48 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

logathrims - i dont get it (basic)

for example simplify ${\dfrac {\log 8}{\log 0.25}}$

so far what ive done is log 4^1.5 / log 4^-1 which is (1.5 log 4 / -1 log 4) which gives me log -1.5 and the answer is meant to be log -3/2. Any ideas?? thanks Testeretset 13:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call me crazy, but I think that -1.5 = -3/2. However, it should be just -1.5 (or -3/2), not log -1.5 or log -3/2. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Meni, and for your original question, can you rephrase both numerator and denominator as log(2^x) ? Capuchin 14:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense, yeah the answer was just -3/2 my mistake. thanks... Testeretset 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the problem lies NOT with logarithms but with faulty mis-understanding of the relationship between rational numbers and floating point numbers. One wonders why the questioner did not take the further step of dividing -3 by 2 on their scientific calculator. 202.168.50.40 00:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.5 is not a floating-point number. Floating point is the name of a method for storing numbers on a computer in two parts, a mantissa and an exponent. The location of the decimal point can be easily changed by changing the exponent part (hence the name, "floating point").

On the other hand, both 3/2 and 1.5 are rational; you might call the former a "fraction" and the latter a "decimal number" (though I wouldn't expect to encounter such terms in any serious mathematics). -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]