Is it immediately clear that
1/2/2 = 1/2²
Printable View
Is it immediately clear that
1/2/2 = 1/2²
Why do you feel the need to explain it?
1/2 divided by 2 is the same as 1/2 divided by 2/1 as in 1/2/2/1
We then multiply the top and bottom by a special case of the number one being 1/2/1/2 which cancels out to 1/2²
But why do some people have a proble with this - what are they missing?
Anything divided by 1 remains as is.
245/1 = 245
1/2/1/2 = 1/2/2 = 0.25
Most younger techs have been tought maths in a slightly different way to pherhaps how we were taught
"BODMAS"
(1/2)/2
1/2+3 =????
I thought that ratios were signed with a colon ':' as in 2:1 etc. or is that the wrong math now-a-days?
I'd say thats a half. I think i'm more verbal that written in my thinking. Thats why these things like tests and exams give me trouble. Or i'm just stupid :p Who knows? :D
If i was being flippant i would say that '1/2' is empty of any inherent meaning, it only means what you think it does because that is what you have learnt and you haven't seen anything since that learning to make you question that knowledge.
I don't mind my dyslexia, in many ways its a blessing. I am quite good at 3D stuff so bending pipes to fit is easy for me, and if i can get a picture of them in my mind i find systems easy to fault find.
Jon :)
I use an RPN calculator, that saves a lot of greif.
I went to school to eat lunch then learnt more after that, by choice.
If I knew then what I knew now, that situation would be totally different, but I cannot change time. Bugger
Why? What significance?Quote:
e^(pi*i) + 1 = 0
Don't know what they're on but i wouldn't mind some.
Ahhh now i see it's Franks Harvest Pale,,,,,,must be good.
Would you agree that it means something like "If I have part of a whole I can tell roughly how much of the whole my part is if I cut the rest of the whole into pieces equal in size to the part I have"?
The "/" means "per" so I have 1 per 2 as in I have 1 of the 2 or 1 for every 2. If there are just 2 of them then I have half of them but if there are an unknown or variable amount of them then I will be entitled to a ratio of 1 for every 2. Whether it is a fraction or a ratio is is the same thing. Physics formula are ratios but they become fractions once the amounts are known.
It's important to understand how we work with fractions if we want to talk of physical principles in terms of ratios...
What does this reduce to...
1/2/1/2/1/2
As in, for instance, when we have
kg m²/s²/N/m/s²/K
?????? Having read that I now think I'm dislexic also. :confused:
I think there is a fundamental error here. You've taken a simple concept, ie a fraction 1/2 and made it into an extremely complicated structure by your own method of description. I really don't think the fraction has any need to be extorted in such a way. :rolleyes: Poor fraction.
simply 1/2 = one whole divided by 2 or did I miss a lesson? ;) Maybe I need some Harvest Pale?
The topic goes a lot, lot deeper than Euler & pure beauty.
The diatribe on the continued fractions is rather esoteric & beautiful. It proves nothing & will lead to confusion. Better to retain only a numerator & denominator, with various combinations strung in series products - as per dimensional analysis theory.
It is easy to appear incredibly smart at others' expense, but this can be counter-productive in the long-run. If you really want to take on a challenge, try explanations of how the various RHVAC circuits work - & develop solid design rules for these. We can then all chip in along the way & this group effort can teach us all something.
I'm trying to take that which appears esoteric or appears as meant to be esoteric and rather make it common place.
Consider this example... Specific heat capacity
kJ/kg/k
Why does it reduce to kJ/kg.K and not KJ.K/kg ??
I have answers to this question - I brought it up a few times with my HND students at Bath College. I thought it so important that I even invited the college's math lecturer in to the class on one occasion to discuss the matter with us. After that occasion the question wasn't fully answered but I am now happy that I have thought enough about it to be able to explain the difference to myself.
DT you ask questions but you have a mightier than thou attitude..
You come over as somone who has taken it upon himself to educate others around you.
But........................
But you do not educate you talk down and undermine others.
You are obviously very educated and extremely inteligent but you come
across as a condicending pr*ck who has had a humour bypass.
You have taken it upon youself to make us better but
you have not asked us if we want your help.
Some of us are not very well educated and when an academic starts showing
off at how inteligent he is, others just put you in the w*nker box.
I have been watching your posts on here since you joined and I have tried to weigh you up...
But I can't, I can't weigh you up, you preach and talk down to people, you never realy offer any
constructive advise, you just spout on about how good you are.
Some engineers on here could not add 2 and 2 together but I would trust them
with a set of spanners and gauges, you would try to belittle them, just to make you look better.
I'm in two minds regarding you.....
Your a w*nker and you need to be filed in the w*nker box
OR
You might have a lot of usefull information and you might be of help to a lot of
good engineers and teach them, if you would only get off your soap box and stop preaching to us.
Now if you are a troll and a wind up merchant you have just won and I have
lost because I bit and mouthed back at you.....
If your a pr*ck then you'll continue as you are.
If you are a decent bloke you'll pull your head out of your arse and offer constructive advise in a way that helps.
coolrunnings
.
I understand fractions and their use, its just that its like numbers are a foreign langauge that i don't know that well, so unlike normal talking where you don't have to think to comunicate, i have to really think sometimes just to do what others may regard as a simple calculation.
I think it was when prime numbers were being taught at school that things started to go wrong for me, we were taught that a prime number is only divisible by itself and 1, e.g. 7 is a prime number.
But to me and my litteral way of taking things 7 and 1 is 8, and i may be daft but i know 8 won't fit in 7....
Jon :)
To go from kJ/kg/K to kJ/kg.K we could say that we did the following
kJ/kg/K/1 was multiplied top and bottom by a special case of 1 being 1/K/1/K (1/K goes into 1/K once).
But then that invokes the question why not...
kJ/1/kg/1/K/1 which when subjected to the same treatment gives us kJ.K/kg.
One way we can look at it is to say that specific heat capacity kJ/kg.K just means that if you had 1kg of the substance then its enthalpy content would increase so many kJ per K temperature rise but at the same time if your substance were to rise in temperature by 1K then the enthalpy rise would be so many kJ for every kg of the substance you had. In which case it doesn't really make sense to think of it as kJ per kg per K but rather from the very outset to think of it as kJ per both kg and K at the same time.
But then we might look around at other examples of the layout and say that always where we have three levels to a fraction we actually have a numerator in fraction form and a denominator implicitly in fraction form which just needs the "over 1" or "/1" to be added beneath it to make explicit that when the numerator is a fraction so too must the denominator before transposing the whole arrangement.
How though does this view stand in regard to acceleration which does seem quite clearly to be m/s/s or meters per second per second as in Velocity per Second. It doesn't seem right to start off from the outset with meters per second second. I feel that m/s² is different from kJ/kg.K and if it is then in what way is it different?
I don't understand the relevance of prime numbers myself. I fell asleep just at the point where I read the words in your post above - now that I have woken up I hope to make a quick escape from any further consideration of them :)
I have limited mental capacity - so I spend most of my efforts eliminating what I think is not important - I tend only to discuss or get involved with discussions on stuff I know is very importantly relevant to what I do.
Where acceleration is m/s/s and so m/s/s/1 becoming m/s² after multiplying it by a special case of 1 being 1/s/1/s we can do the reverse for pressure as in N/m² which can become N/m/m as in Newton per meter per meter.
If the force (Newton) was created by 10kg of water which would be 10 x 9.81 = 98.1N was over an area of 1m x 2m then the pressure in Pascals or N/m² would be 98.1/(1x2) = 49N/m² (Pa).
We could just as easily have followed N/m/m as in 98.1/1/2 = 49Pa.
Here we can look at 98.1/1/2 as if it were (98.1/1) divided by 2 gives 49Pa or someone might say "No, I see 98 divided by 1/2 which is 196Pa".
The correct answer seems to always come about when we treat the top most fraction as a whole number and then the remaining lower value as the denominator and treat it, during superposition, as an implied fraction by adding and "over 1" to it.
I thought 3 was the magic number