physis
Senior Member
Re: 320 watts
After looking at this calculus stuff for a week I?m starting to wonder if the quantum theories are representing reality or calculus. The theories, especially field theory, look very much like they describe calculus. By the way there?s a thermodynamic model that describes what happens at no temperature (temp = 0), as a result of Heisenberg, the particle cannot be located because it?s position probability becomes infinite. That?s X/0 = infinity again. It?s pretty clear that with no temperature (that reduces to no motion) there?s no energy and relativity and E=MC? dictates that there?s no particle. It sort of implies that it?s absorbed into the space/time continuum. But only the math says that?ll happen, it?s doubtful a particle could be made to stop. Well, this stuff is what my interest in calculus is.
Rattus, I didn?t think I?d ever be saying this, graphing the trigonometric function isn?t a big deal. Attaining the derivative d(wt) from the function Vp? cos? (wt) on the other hand I can?t seem to manage. My best algebra (rusty as it might be) just bounces right off this stuff like bullets bouncing off Superman?s chest. I thought for sure I?d figure it out in a couple days, ok, a week, alright, now I don?t even care anymore. I really need some time away from math now. I pretty much understand what the calculus says, but I still can?t ?do? calculus. I see that the derivative comes from the inverse of the function at the limit. I see that zero has to be removed from denominator. I?m starting to see these equations as words rather than groups of numbers, weird.
The delta function. If it is even a function. I understand that it is a description of change. But it seems like it?s some kind of catch all that removes the need to describe the operation. Delta something (as a function) looks more like an excuse to omit the operation than a description of an operation. I see that Delta(x) can define every infinitesimal value possible, but I don?t see anything causing those values to all (or any of them) be considered.
In computer programming we use a for next loop to accomplish what it looks like (to me) Delta pretends to accomplish. I?m not seeing any actual defining of statistical sampling and evaluation of the samples. It looks to me like it?s being ?pretended?. I see that the derivative can define every infinitesimal value But lacking a clear understanding I can?t rule out the possibility that?s it?s just my inability to get it. I remember having a very firm grasp of digital electronics and analog and AC largely eluded me. This seems similar in that it?s the dynamic element of this stuff I?m having trouble with.
I think I owe Carl an apology. Having a slightly better grasp of this stuff I think he was very thorough. Sorry Carl.
After looking at this calculus stuff for a week I?m starting to wonder if the quantum theories are representing reality or calculus. The theories, especially field theory, look very much like they describe calculus. By the way there?s a thermodynamic model that describes what happens at no temperature (temp = 0), as a result of Heisenberg, the particle cannot be located because it?s position probability becomes infinite. That?s X/0 = infinity again. It?s pretty clear that with no temperature (that reduces to no motion) there?s no energy and relativity and E=MC? dictates that there?s no particle. It sort of implies that it?s absorbed into the space/time continuum. But only the math says that?ll happen, it?s doubtful a particle could be made to stop. Well, this stuff is what my interest in calculus is.
Rattus, I didn?t think I?d ever be saying this, graphing the trigonometric function isn?t a big deal. Attaining the derivative d(wt) from the function Vp? cos? (wt) on the other hand I can?t seem to manage. My best algebra (rusty as it might be) just bounces right off this stuff like bullets bouncing off Superman?s chest. I thought for sure I?d figure it out in a couple days, ok, a week, alright, now I don?t even care anymore. I really need some time away from math now. I pretty much understand what the calculus says, but I still can?t ?do? calculus. I see that the derivative comes from the inverse of the function at the limit. I see that zero has to be removed from denominator. I?m starting to see these equations as words rather than groups of numbers, weird.
The delta function. If it is even a function. I understand that it is a description of change. But it seems like it?s some kind of catch all that removes the need to describe the operation. Delta something (as a function) looks more like an excuse to omit the operation than a description of an operation. I see that Delta(x) can define every infinitesimal value possible, but I don?t see anything causing those values to all (or any of them) be considered.
In computer programming we use a for next loop to accomplish what it looks like (to me) Delta pretends to accomplish. I?m not seeing any actual defining of statistical sampling and evaluation of the samples. It looks to me like it?s being ?pretended?. I see that the derivative can define every infinitesimal value But lacking a clear understanding I can?t rule out the possibility that?s it?s just my inability to get it. I remember having a very firm grasp of digital electronics and analog and AC largely eluded me. This seems similar in that it?s the dynamic element of this stuff I?m having trouble with.
I think I owe Carl an apology. Having a slightly better grasp of this stuff I think he was very thorough. Sorry Carl.
