Jump to content
aberdeen-music

Le Stu

Members
  • Posts

    3,014
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Le Stu

  1. hope they don't ask me calculus questions, probably not if they're gonna teach me it.
  2. 3sin^2x? complete guess.
  3. rather than decimal. like: 48 _ 2 using the sign implies the term on the left is divided by the term on the right. It doesn't represent a fraction as the coefficient. Brackets are expanded before division, and, since there are no unknowns, 2(9+3) expands to a single figure, 24.
  4. you can't resolve 2(9+3) as separate terms, though It's already 'bracketed' by algebraic convention. BODMAS applies but like this: (2*9+2*3) there is no arithmetic operator between 2 and (9+3) so they aren't separate terms. Likewise, you can't argue that the coefficient of (9+3) is 482 as that doesn't represent a natural fraction (48 over 2 which would be 24).
  5. 2 is the coefficient of (9+3) therefore 48 can only be divided by the whole expression 2(9+3) which expands to 24. I think that's the best it can be explained.
  6. I only substituted x to show that the rules for expanding parenthesis in algebra work. it's no different with the actual numbers. 2 and (9+3) are factors of 24. look at it this way 48 / x(9+3) there's no way in hell you'd divide by x first.
  7. The latter as 2(9+3) is a natural expression. It isn't 2*(9+3).
  8. No, it's fine. substitute x for 2: x(9+3) 9x+3x 12x Or x(9+3) x(12) 12x doesn't matter.
  9. Well, I guess you could do that, so you get 2(12), which expands to 24. Same difference. You have to expand the brackets first, as per BODMAS.
  10. ah, but 2(9+3) isn't 2*(9+3), it's ((2*9)+(2*3)) makes more sense if you use x= 2 x(9+3) = 9x+3x = 12x = 12*2 = 24. If it was explicitly 2*(9+3) rather than 2(9+3) then that would be a different matter. This is a confusion of notation.
  11. You can also expand the brackets as: 48 / 2(9+3) 48 / 18 + 6 8.67 (to 2dp)
  12. that's more trolling maths, rather than maths trolling. (one for the right-brained amongst us.)
  13. I'll keep an eye out for him
  14. college. I'm hoping it's just simple algebra, maybe trig and understanding log/exp scales. and yeah I have no idea how to work this casio thing.
  15. yeah, that's what I'm afraid of bastards have set me a 'maths test' for my entrance interview. that means I have to revise everything
  16. that's it I'm actually applying for an engineering course so I've been revising basic maths. if you do enough algebra you'll instantly see it's 2 as you know how to resolve parentheses properly.
  17. The other way to prove this is by substituting x for 2. 48 / x(9+3) =288 48 / 12x = 288 48 = 12x * 288 12x = 48 / 288 12x = 1 / 6 x = 1/72 no. 48 / x(9+3) =2 48 / 12x = 2 48 = 12x * 2 48 = 24x 24x = 48 x = 2 Yes.
  18. nah, it's 2. Good attempt though. There's actually no ambiguity to the expression, just a rather ugly mix of natural and computer notation. people get 288 as they incorrectly interpret 2(9+3) as 2*(9+3) when it's actually (2*(9+3)) or as adam wrote it as a natural expression. Man, people go nuts over this though.
  19. not only that but at least 18 pages.
  20. Excellent work. 2 and 288.
  21. Yep. It can actually support better than CD quality but the source will typically be from CD. It's surprising just how low fidelity sound is in this age. DVD audio doesn't seem to have taken off. Sound is still represented by an integer value between +/-32,000 changing 44 thousand times per second. I'm not surprised that people keep the vinyl.
  22. Claires should be on this, they'd make a killing,
  23. Me neither. The point of FLAC is to have a lossless backup source. You might not notice much difference between a lossy encoding and lossless one, but if you take the lossy encoding and then convert it to some other lossy format, the potential for compression artefacts squaring is there. I think I've encoded (most of) my CD collection a few times now. 128kbps, 160kbps and finally HQ variable bit-rate mp3. That might be it but I have the CDs if I find a better format and it snows like it did this winter again. And yes, it does feel like an obsessive compulsion.
  24. He's probably right though, just in an unnecessarily obnoxious way. Vinyl is lovely, just completely impractical, and even shrinking album covers to CD size was horrible, let alone the postage stamps they've been reduced to now. Spotify is a revelation though. I'm only going to buy music if I can't find it on there, or I want it for my iPod. However, CD is still the best for being its own lossless backup. until FLAC or 24 bit becomes standard, I can't see me bothering with pay per unit downloads.
×
×
  • Create New...