Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2016 April 24
Mathematics desk | ||
---|---|---|
< April 23 | << Mar | April | May >> | April 25 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
April 24
[edit]Card models ( making a Bridge Arch)...
[edit]Posting in maths , but it's essentialy a geometric construction problem.
I have the elevation of a bridge. ( for example File:Bridges_27.png)
I'd like to use 2 elevations and a centre piece modelled in card.
How do I construct the flattened centre piece from the eleveation? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I.E How do I construct a line that is equal in distance to the length of an arc? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- If it's not piecewise straight or circular, you'll need to do some integrating. Have you a mathematical description of the arc? —Tamfang (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on bridge construction, but my observations of bridge arches lead me to the conclusion that quite a wide range of curves are possible and used in practice. Perhaps an engineer can advise on the strongest. The oldest bridges seem to be closer to a circular arc. Dbfirs 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't have a mathematical description, but I do have the elevation (like in the example image given..)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- At first I thought you were building a bridge out of playing cards, but now I think you meant something else by "card". Care to elaborate ? StuRat (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see, card stock versus playing cards. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest a "practical method". In this case, place a string over your illustration, following the arc, measure it's length, and apply the scale difference between the illustration and your model. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, that will work but I was sure there was a geometrical method I could use in Inkscape. Bridge arches are just the start of what I'm trying to do. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- This is the elevation I have - File:Model bridge.svg, There should be a geometric approach that let's me find how long to make the piece of card for the arch (lablled.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It should be able to be reasonably approximated by a conic section, and I believe those can be defined by 5 points. So, if you can find the coords of the 2 endpoints and 3 interior points you should be able to find a formula for the arc length.
- Another method is just to break it down into many tiny line segments, and add the lengths. If you can find each point on the curve accurately, this should work well, and has the advantage of working for any curve (or flat), although you would need to be careful in how you find the points, in the case of horizontal or vertical curves, or those which bend back on themselves. StuRat (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Arc length for an ellipse is nontrivial; I don't think it has a closed expression. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- It does not. See elliptic integral.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then my second option sounds like the best choice. StuRat (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
My data does not make sense.
[edit]I have an Excel spreadsheet. The data is located here: User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page79. (That is one column of data from my Excel spreadsheet. I just did a copy-and-paste.) Excel tells me that I have 66 data points. The sum of all of the data points is negative 100.12. And the average of all of the data points is negative 0.23. This does not seem to make any sense to me. Can this possibly be accurate? If not, what's the problem in Excel that I am not seeing? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- If there is a blank cell in the column, does Excel treat that cell as a value of zero? But, even if that were the case (which I do not think that it is), the average still does not seem correct. What could be going on? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excel treats blank entries as if they're not there. I pasted the data into my own Excel spreadsheet and it tells me that average is -1.517 which I assume is correct. But there may be some setting somewhere that tells Excel to treat blanks as 0, which might explain what you're getting. Another likely explanation is that the range of cells you're averaging over doesn't include all the data; this can easily happen if you're adding/removing the numbers from month to month. --RDBury (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. What is have is a bunch of rows. Let's say 75. And I fill them up one-by-one (each month). So, apparently, I got down to Row 66. In this column, there are 9 blank rows under the data. I take the sum -- and also the average -- of the entire column (from Row 1 all the way down to Row 75). This way, the sum and average will change month-by-month as each Row value is added. That should work correctly. Also, even if Excel puts "zero" in each blank cell, that average does not come out right. Is there a way to attach/include the actual spreadsheet somehow? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Joseph A. Spadaro: You could upload it to google drive (or another cloud platform) and link it from there — crh 23 (Talk) 19:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. What is have is a bunch of rows. Let's say 75. And I fill them up one-by-one (each month). So, apparently, I got down to Row 66. In this column, there are 9 blank rows under the data. I take the sum -- and also the average -- of the entire column (from Row 1 all the way down to Row 75). This way, the sum and average will change month-by-month as each Row value is added. That should work correctly. Also, even if Excel puts "zero" in each blank cell, that average does not come out right. Is there a way to attach/include the actual spreadsheet somehow? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. How do I do all that? I have no idea what that even means. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just go to the Google Drive website and either log in (if you already have a Google account such as Gmail), or create a new account. My Excel agrees with RDBury's average of negative 1.517. What formulas appear in your total and average cells? We might be able to diagnose the problem from those. Dbfirs 11:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- These are the three formulas ... =COUNT(H3:H82) ... =SUM(H3:H82) ... and, lastly, ... =AVERAGE(H43:H82) ... Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unless H43 is a typo for H3, that could be where your problem is. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- That may be it! I will double check! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- O.M.G. --JBL (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- One potential problem is if the range of cells which is averaged is finite, and you keep adding items, then you eventually exceed that range. From your description above it sounds like you have 80 cells in the range, and currently have 66 entries, so you won't hit this limit for another 14 months. If there's a way to define the cell range to be infinite, or at least large enough that you will never hit the end, like 1000, then that will fix the problem. StuRat (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point. And I always consider that. When I have to add in a new row, I always add it into the middle of the range somewhere. I never add it right at the end (i.e., the last row). This helps to preclude the common error of having to modify the formula (when you extend the range by adding new rows) yet forgetting to do so. So I can just keep the old formula. And the old formula simply adjusts itself when new rows are added in to the middle of the range. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Follow up question
[edit]Referring to the above problem, it seems that the error came about as a typo in a cell formula. The formula was =AVERAGE(H43:H82), which contained a typo. It should have been =AVERAGE(H3:H82). My question is: does Excel have any type of way to "catch" an error like this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Excel sometimes puts a little green triangle at the top left corner to indicate a problem of some kind, such as a formula that isn't consistent with those around it. When the cell is selected you get an icon you can hover over to see a detailed message: with a similar situation to yours I got "The formula in this cell differs from the formulas in this area of the spreadsheet". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hatted off-topic discussion
|
---|
I am the OP. I assure you that no apology will be forthcoming. Please bank on that. I do, however, say "thanks" to those who helped answer my query. Most of you, that is. Not all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@StuRat:, @Joseph A. Spadaro:, this is what happened the last time I wasted someone's time on the refdesk by my own sloppiness. Joseph A. Spadaro, you would be well-served to read and reflect on Meni Rosenfeld's excellent, thoughtful comments. --JBL (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Meta-meta comment: I agree that this sub-thread should be collapsed, so as not to distract from the primary questions being asked. I don't agree that "probably nobody should [read it]". Obviously there are differing views about the respective responsibilities of question askers and answerers. Discussing these matters is important if we want to improve as a community. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC) |
Rings surjecting to localizations
[edit]Let R be a commutative ring. When is it true that the natural map from R to S-1R is surjective for every multiplicative subset S of R? Is this equivalent to every prime ideal of R being maximal? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean Epimorphism, not Surjection?John Z (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- If R→S-1R is surjective then S contains only units. Since if s is in S, there must be r in R so r→r/1=1/s, which implies rs=1.
- If P is a prime ideal then S=R-P is multiplicative. If R→S-1R is onto then R-P must contain only units, in other words P is maximal.
- I believe that proves one direction, but Z is a counterexample for the other direction. Z-pZ is multiplicative but certainly contains non-units. Actually I'm having a hard time coming up with an example where the first condition holds other than a field. Maybe a local ring?--RDBury (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)