Nobody around here can seem to figure out an exact answer for this equation:
http://nathan.bitmesh.com/equation.gif

Once x is found, it will be used to solve for the radius of a circle (x/8 = r). So x cannot be negative, zero, or undefined. This equation was derived by using known information, so there has to be solution. A senior college math class and many math teachers from a local high school can't figure this one out. Any help would be appreciated.

Nobody around here can seem to figure out an exact answer for this equation:
sin(x) = 3x/4

Once x is found, it will be used to solve for the radius of a circle (x/8 = r). So x cannot be negative, zero, or undefined. This equation was derived by using known information, so there has to be solution. A senior college math class and many math teachers from a local high school can't figure this one out. Any help would be appreciated.

Maybe I'm missing something but it would appear that r = 0.09375

Nobody around here can seem to figure out an exact answer for this equation:
http://nathan.bitmesh.com/equation.gif

Once x is found, it will be used to solve for the radius of a circle (x/8 = r). So x cannot be negative, zero, or undefined. This equation was derived by using known information, so there has to be solution. A senior college math class and many math teachers from a local high school can't figure this one out. Any help would be appreciated.

Unfortunately you have an error somewhere because the formula only balances when x = 0.

Not true. There is a positive solution (just graph it and it's easy to see, or think about the Taylor series of the sine function). I highly doubt it's analytically soluble though (and I'm sure that if it is then someone else will point it out). By truncating the series you can get an approximation. Using the first six terms of the expansion you can find it to be approximately 1.275698.

Hi,Nathan,
In crank-Museum Math you get such answer:
MacM:
Unfortunately you have an error somewhere because the formula only balances when x = 0.

In conventional Math answer is x = 1.275673...
Good luck.

Not true. There is a positive solution (just graph it and it's easy to see, or think about the Taylor series of the sine function). I highly doubt it's analytically soluble though (and I'm sure that if it is then someone else will point it out). By truncating the series you can get an approximation. Using the first six terms of the expansion you can find it to be approximately 1.275698.

I got the same general numerical value (1.27569842338562) using a GWBasic program I wrote to balance a trial=(4/3)sin(x) vs the value of x but I forgot to use (x*rad) since my computer runs trig in Radians. When I inserted the Rad term it goes to zero.. :bugeye:

Yuriy,

You might want to consider:

Sin(1.275698) = 0.0222632908

(4/3)*0.0222632908 = 0.029684

0.029684 does not equal 1.275698

Nor does 0.02226 equal 0.75 * 1.275698.

.75 * 1.276598 = 0.95677

So stick it in your Crank Museum ear.

Sin(1.275698) = 0.0222632908

is wrong. sin(1.275698) is approximately 0.956774. What's sin(pi/2) again, and how close is 1.275698 to pi/2? Thanks.

is wrong. sin(1.275698) is approximately 0.956774.

If that is so the buttons on my calculator "Sin" and "Cos" have been reverseed but since it shows Sin(30) as equal 0.5, I rather have my doubts.

Cos(1.275698) = 0.99975

Think about it. When x = 0 the cosine = 1 and the Sin = 0. Where on that curve do you think 1.27 degrees puts you? Near 1.0 or near 0.0?

I suspect you made an error and Yuriy just jumped on the band wagon to appear smart and assumed I was wrong.

Slow down Yuriy you are fucking up.

Yuriy,

You might want to consider:

Sin(1.275698) = 0.0222632908

(4/3)*0.0222632908 = 0.029684

0.029684 does not equal 1.275698

So stick it in your Crank Museum ear

Only the crank-Museum honorable member will get
sin(1.275698)=0.0222632908

Think about it. When x = 0 the cosine = 1 and the Sin = 0. Where on that curve do you think 1.27 degrees puts you? Near 1.0 or near 0.0?

Who said anything about degrees? I find it more and more unlikely that you've ever learned any real math.

Who said anything about degrees? I find it more and more unlikely that you've ever learned any real math.


Perhaps you might care to explain where you take the Sin of anything other than degrees. And your assumption is grossly misplaced, even though I haven't done a lot of math for some time your comments are horseshit.

Data,
now you got your portion of "Thanks" from this "scientist -explorer"! Welcom to team!...

Perhaps you might care to explain where you take the Sin of anything other than degrees.

Everywhere that I took the sine of anything. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I strongly suggest you stop trying.

Welcom to team!

hahah, thanks :)

Everywhere that I took the sine of anything. You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I strongly suggest you stop trying.



hahah, thanks :)

And just where do you see him qualify (x) as radians? Stick it in your ear as well.

The fact is I posted the 1.27 answer before either of you posted but deleted it since it was in radians and I re-did it for degrees. And before you pop off Yuriy, keep in mind that deleted posts can be recovered and if you give your usual BS reply, I'll do my best to have it restored and cram it down your goddamn throat.

MacM:
And just where do you see him qualify (x) as radians? Stick it in your ear as well.

Only full idiot will try to solve the equation

sin(x in degrees) = 3/4* x in degrees

Only full idiot will try to solve the equation

sin(x in degrees) = 3/4* x in degrees

I see you chose to not challenge my assertion that I posted the 1.27 value before you. Good damn thing.

I don't need to "qualify" anything. Solving that equation assuming that x is "degrees" is wrong.

Dear Nathan,
you owe us: we not only gave you the solution of your problem, but even entertained you a lot!...

i thought russians believed in sharing rather than demanding something in return

Dilbert,
you are absolutely right in general. But I am strange Russian: when I share my knowledge I believe that a simple "Thanks" in return will be not too much...

Dear Nathan,
you owe us: we not only gave you the solution of your problem, but even entertained you a lot!...

Ha. Yep this was entertaining. But the bottom line is "I made the mistake of thinking I made a mistake which caused me to make a mistake.

Hope you have sufficient mental capacity to follow that statement. :D

But what I find of more interest is I got the correct answer sooner than you did using your precious calculus or Tayor's series. I didn't need calculus to get the answer, so stick that in your uppity ear.

We had gotten an approximate answer already, what we were looking for was the exact answer. Seeing as to how nobody can solve this on any of the numerous forums that it has been posted on, I've decided to give up. Much thanks to everybody that tried to help.

For those interested, here is what somebody came up with in another forum:
There is only one positive root and that's essentially all we can say. That's because, unfortunately, the root is a transcendental number (this can be proved rigorously), and, most likely, not expressible using http://nathan.bitmesh.com/pi.gif and http://nathan.bitmesh.com/e.gif either (though I doubt anyone in the world has the slightest idea of how to prove that). So, the only thing one can do is to find a numerical approximation on a calculator.

Yep, that's what I meant by not analytically soluble :)

We had gotten an approximate answer already, what we were looking for was the exact answer. Seeing as to how nobody can solve this on any of the numerous forums that it has been posted on, I've decided to give up. Much thanks to everybody that tried to help.

For those interested, here is what somebody came up with in another forum:

I think you need to specify what you mean by "exact". There are many things that do not come out "Exact".

The routine I wrote which produced my first answer which I deleted thinking I had errored is attached. If you have GWBasic you will find that it resolved the answer to:

1.27569842338562 for both X and 4/3*Sin(X).

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3780&stc=1


So who needs calculus. :D

And assuming you have Maple, all you need to type is

evalf(solve(3/4*x = sum((-1)^i*x^(2*i+1)/(2*i+1)!, i=0..5)));

What's your point?

And assuming you have Maple, all you need to type is

evalf(solve(3/4*x = sum((-1)^i*x^(2*i+1)/(2*i+1)!, i=0..5)));

What's your point?

The point simply put is the number of times that Yuriy and others have tried to make a big deal out of me no longer doing calculus. The reason I don't bother going back and burdening myself with it is that if I need to solve a problem I know how to write programs to find the answer..

Personally I find it better to think than to memorize. And no I don't have Maple. As you can see from the program it is straight forward using the up front terms and symbols, nothing complicated to organize.

It took about 5 minutes to write and 15 seconds to derive the answer. Beats years in school tring to memorize a bunch of forms and formats like the one you just posted. I would rather work with the actual components of the problem.

If you think this is bullshit then I challenge you to give me a problem - within reason - and I'll give you an answer without calculus.

MacM wrote:

...So stick it in your Crank Museum ear.

And:

...cram it down your goddamn throat.

And:
...so stick that in your uppity ear.


Ouch! My anatomy!

And:

Perhaps you might care to explain where you take the Sin of anything other than degrees. And your assumption is grossly misplaced, even though I haven't done a lot of math for some time your comments are horseshit.

MacM,
We many times use radians (e.g. pi/2 rad = 90 degrees) as an angular measurement. And take the sin of it. More often than not.

MacM wrote:

The reason I don't bother going back and burdening myself with it is that if I need to solve a problem I know how to write programs to find the answer..

I also do the same. Sometimes writing an iterative algorithm is much easier than solving for the general solution, especially if you want an explicit answer for a particular engineering application.

Like this (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3785&stc=1) one?

I also do the same. Sometimes writing an iterative algorithm is much easier than solving for the general solution, especially if you want an explicit answer for a particular engineering application.

Precisely.

Ouch! My anatomy!

And:



MacM,
We many times use radians (e.g. pi/2 rad = 90 degrees) as an angular measurement. And take the sin of it. More often than not.

Certainly. My point was I saw nothing that dictated that it should be radians or degrees. While my first answer was correct in radians, I then ran it in degrees and made the miss calculation that he had screwed up instead of the correct answer being in radians.

Wrong apparently but hardly the resounding damnation leveled by Yuriy and others as to my competance - At least that is MY opinion. :D

Like this (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3785&stc=1) one?

Well, you apparently either forgot or don't know that in addition to having mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, my specialty was electronics.

Your problem has a ready made solution; however, I intend to write a program that will resolve the correct answer just to show you how it is done.

I believe it was before your joining here that Lethe challenged me to compute the resistance of a resistor cube and gave me his values (all different) for each resistor. I gave him a correct answer. That one took a couple of days.

It turned out that my simplified diagram wasn't as simple as it could have been but it still functioned.

I'll get back with the solution.

Some short C functions:

float LadderResistance(int N, float R)
{
//N = how many segments do you want???

int n;
float result = 3R;

for(n = 0; n < N; n++) {

result = parallel(result,R);

result += 2R;
}

return result;
}

float parallel(float Ra,float Rb)
{

return (Ra * Rb)/(Ra + Rb);

}

superL,
now you amazed me: what you continue to discuss with MacM after what he has done in this thread?
Listen to him:
Certainly. My point was I saw nothing that dictated that it should be radians or degrees. While my first answer was correct in radians, I then ran it in degrees and made the miss calculation that he had screwed up instead of the correct answer being in radians.
Wrong apparently but hardly the resounding damnation leveled by Yuriy and others as to my competance - At least that is MY opinion.

As Data said to him:
You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I strongly suggest you stop trying.
He still has no clue why his reasoning is stupid. The point is that sin of any argument, no matter is it measured in degrees or radians, always is a NUMBER.
Therefore if you got equation like that sin x = 3/4 * x it can have any sense ONLY IF X IS MEASURED IN RADIANS !!! Because NUMBER can not be equal some pieces of DEGREES!!!
So his reasoning like "I saw nothing that dictated that it should be radians or degrees" exactly shows that he never learn even foundations of trigonometry...

Yuiry,

I am not discussing or debating anything. I am trying to take the most Zen-like approach to things that I can. Clearly MacM was out in left field with that degrees/radians thing. I am trying to be gentle with all and not ruin the effects of my blood pressure medicine.

Yuriy is correct, even if not polite.

The value of sin(x) is a number. The equation only makes sense if x is a number (i.e. not in degrees).

I don't think anyone is arguing this.

I don't think anyone is arguing this.

I appreciate SL's tone. Clearly radians was the correct approach. In my haste I made a wrong turn but only after producing the correct answer first.

Yuriy's continued assinine comments about what I have learned is just that assinine. I certainly have forgotten much of what I had learned but generally find I don't need it anymore in that I get my solutions via my own software routines.

Had I been working on my own problem I would not have taken the "0" result, it was my erroneous assumption that he had errored.

Not that anybody cares but I am preparing a file to post in "About Members" which shows the projects I have designed, manufactured and sold. At least the facts vs the BS from Yuriy will be evident.

Some short C functions:

Thanks but I only work in GWBasic.

OK Data,
MacM said he posted his answer originally where he used radians and got the same result as yourself. MacM's activity in posting went very hurriedly, apparently, and he edited the correct answer and posted an alternate result, using the same Basic program with degrees substituted for radians. Whatever your opinion regarding MacM's math skills, you must admit he defended the use of degrees forcefully and adequately. I think there is the possibility that your assertions regarding MacM's math skills was misplaced. Did you catch the error of using degrees instead of radiams?

Are you familiar with the NASA satellite that went belly-up by the use of gm/cm in a program written using ft/lbs during a crucial navigation maneuver? Detailed systems analysis and testing failed to expose what should be obvious by inspection.

You should give MacM the benefit of the doubt regarding the post. I noticed Yuriy, hovering over your shoulders, as one of 'the team'. Did Yuriy post an answer, or did he simply agree with yours? I am not sure. If you were aware of the no love lost between MAcM and Yuriy engaged in spirited debate you might temper your understanding of what Yuriy is all about. Yuriy should be taken with a tad of salt. Objectivity and scientific arms-length observation would not be Yuriy's Plan A: 1st preferred modus operandi.

Data, did the question posed in the opening post of this thread get answered to your satisfaction? Any lingering thoughts?

Geistkiesel

Mainly it tells me that MacM has never done any real math. Which is exactly what I said earlier. That should have been obvious when he called pi an "infinite number," though.

you must admit he defended the use of degrees forcefully and adequately

There isn't any defense to using "degrees." If you do it correctly (and understand what degrees actually represent - a completely arbitrary transformation applied to a real number), then sure, you'll get the same answer. But from the perspective of anyone who actually knows what they're doing it's a completely idiotic thing to do, even if implemented correctly.

Yuriy hasn't said anything that I've seen indicating that he doesn't know what he's talking about yet. MacM has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he does. And the fact that he actually tried to claim that I needed to "qualify" my use of real numbers without units is just mind boggling (and he did it several times!).

Mainly it tells me that MacM has never done any real math. Which is exactly what I said earlier. That should have been obvious when he called pi an "infinite number," though.

There isn't any defense to using "degrees." If you do it correctly (and understand what degrees actually represent - a completely arbitrary transformation applied to a real number), then sure, you'll get the same answer. But from the perspective of anyone who actually knows what they're doing it's a completely idiotic thing to do, even if implemented correctly.

Yuriy hasn't said anything that I've seen indicating that he doesn't know what he's talking about yet. MacM has given me absolutely no reason to believe that he does. And the fact that he actually tried to claim that I needed to "qualify" my use of real numbers without units is just mind boggling (and he did it several times!).

I still do. Perhaps this issue is an understood one among those that routinely do such exercises; however for the casual person a simple notation of units would have made it impossible to mis-interprete. I am convienced that radians is the correct units to use but I am not convienced that it has been shown that anywhere there is a rule that says such a formula needs no units.

And unfortunately this post tells me that you are another member that chooses to distort meanings of other posters in an attempt to use those distortions to your advantage claiming some superiority.

My reference to pi and infinity, as you well know, related to the unending series of non-repeating decimal places only.

Your post is repleat with unwarranted innuendo and distortion.

There is NO UNIT. Not radians, degrees, or anything else you would like to come up with. The domain and codomain of the sine function are both the real numbers. "60 degrees" is just another (and completely arbitrary) name for the real number pi/3.

Not to mention, what "innuendo and distortion" did I use?

Not to mention, what "innuendo and distortion" did I use?

As I said you know damn well my reference to Pi and infinity in the same sentence referred to the infinite number of decimal places only.

Mainly it tells me that MacM has never done any real math. Which is exactly what I said earlier. That should have been obvious when he called pi an "infinite number," though.

Yeah. And all I said was that when you said that I should have immediately concluded that you had never done any real math.

Yeah. And all I said was that when you said that I should have immediately concluded that you had never done any real math.


You are not making sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with noting that Pi is an unending number and never results in a totally precise conclusion. That was the issue.

MacM:
I'll get back with the solution.

1 day already has been passed...

When x is expressed in radians, sin(x) = x - x³/3! + x⁵/5! . . .

When x is expressed in degrees, the power series has messy coefficients.

Naturally, mathematicians like to work with nice integer numbers when possible, so they use radians.

Radians is a unit of angular measure and degrees is a different unit. 60 degrees = pi/3 radians. The 60 in this equation is no less real (whatever that means) than pi/3.

The sine of an angle is a dimension-less value, while distance and angle values are dimensioned values.

The equation being discussed has no real solution if the units are degrees. At least I do not think it has a solution.

To me, the problem as stated is ambiguous. Is it not allowable to ask for a solution to the following?

sin(x) = x/60, where x is expressed in degrees (Solution: x = 30).

BTW: The equation can be expressed as y = sin(x) - 3x/4 The zeros any function with a simple derivative can be found using the Newton-Raphson iterative method. This is not difficult to do using a calculator with trig functions, but no equation solver.

Dinosaur,
you should read Data's posts more carefully...
For all readers: term "radian" means "the part of full angle whose ark is equal to its side". "Full angle" is the plane angle arround center of cyrcle at rotation along its circumference one full turn".
Moreover:
sin(x) = x/60, where x is expressed in degrees (Solution: x = 30).
This is absurd as I already explained, because right notation of equation should be
sin (x degrees) = x degrees/60
what is ninsense. sin(30 degrees) is not equal to sin(30)!

The 60 in this equation is no less real (whatever that means) than pi/3.

You should read what I said more carefully, like Yuriy suggested. Real means what it's typically defined to mean in mathematics, that is, x is real if it is an element of the set of real numbers. "60 degrees" is another representation of the real number pi/3. Mathematicians don't really work with any unit. Occasionally it's convenient to give angles units in order to keep track of them. It always works out nicely, with units or not, because whenever you're working with physical quantities you never have to do anything that would normally be illegal for dimensionful quantities when dealing with angles (for example, you never have to take t+1 when t is an angle). Angles are mathematically defined as dimensionless quantities, though.

Let u and v be nonzero vectors in Euclidean n-space (this can be generalised). Let their lengths be ||u|| and ||v|| respectively (defined in the usual way via the inner product). Then take u', v' to be the unit vectors in the directions of u and v, or, more precisely, u' = u/||u|| and v' = v/||v||. Then the angle between u and v is defined to be the arclength of the circular arc centered at the origin, sharing nonzero endpoints with u' and v'.

Added after posting:

The sine of an angle is a dimension-less value, while distance and angle values are dimensioned values.

I missed this the first time through. Sines are of course dimensionless. As noted above, though, angles are not dimensionful.

sin(x) = x/60, where x is expressed in degrees (Solution: x = 30).

This is absurd as I already explained, because right notation of equation should be
sin (x degrees) = x degrees/60
what is ninsense.

Actually his equation does make sense, precisely because angles are just real numbers. His solution is wrong though, because in order to find the solution you have to take the real value given by the sine function and convert it to degrees (by multiplying by 180 degrees/pi). The solutions to his equation are therefore x=0, or, approximately, |x|=177.05 degrees or |x|=366.11 degrees.

But, for example, sin(x) = (4/(pi*sqrt(2))x has the solution x = 45 degrees (or just x = pi/4 without the stupid extra steps of converting to degrees).

As expected, solving degrees-wise just adds useless extra steps. It's expected because, like I said, degrees are a completely arbitrary measure and have no place in mathematics (which is precisely why they are never, ever, used, unless they aren't going to be needed for siginificant computation).

You are quite right that solving that equation without converting the real value of the sine function to degrees is nonsense and wrong.

You are not making sense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with noting that Pi is an unending number and never results in a totally precise conclusion. That was the issue.

Pi is no more "imprecise" than any other number. If you had ever done any math at all you would know the word you're looking for is "irrational," as in, not a ratio of integers. Another correct term would be "transcendental," as in, not the solution to any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. Almost every real number is transcendental, so there's nothing to complain about there.

Actually his equation does make sense, precisely because angles are just real numbers. His solution is wrong though, because in order to find the solution you have to take the real value given by the sine function and convert it to degrees (by multiplying by 180 degrees/pi). The solutions to his equation are therefore x=0, or, approximately, |x|=177.05 degrees or |x|=366.11 degrees.

But, for example, sin(x) = (4/(pi*sqrt(2))x has the solution x = 45 degrees (or just x = pi/4 without the stupid extra steps of converting to degrees).

As expected, solving degrees-wise just adds useless extra steps. It's expected because, like I said, degrees are a completely arbitrary measure and have no place in mathematics (which is precisely why they are never, ever, used, unless they aren't going to be needed for siginificant computation).

You are quite right that solving that equation without converting the real value of the sine function to degrees is nonsense and wrong.

Now I think we can be in general agreement.

Pi is no more "imprecise" than any other number. If you had ever done any math at all you would know the word you're looking for is "irrational," as in, not a ratio of integers. Another correct term would be "transcendental," as in, not the solution to any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. Almost every real number is transcendental, so there's nothing to complain about there.

Again I can agree to having used a less than optimum term but that is a far cry from having had no mathematical training or experience.

I wonder why all the calculators I've come across use degrees when calculating sin?

MacM:


1 day already has been passed...

That is a long time for you to not be posting negative comment. Actually I have decided not to play your game. I have better things to do. The solution is 0.73 r.

But I don't have to show you jack crap.

Data,

Are you a scientist by training (mathemetician, physicist, etc...)? If you don't mind.

Thanks.

fo3 wrote:

I wonder why all the calculators I've come across use degrees when calculating sin?

All scientific calculators I've ever seen do degrees and radians.

I wonder why all the calculators I've come across use degrees when calculating sin?

Because simple angles are often represented in degrees, by a completely arbitrary convention. If all I need to do is just take the sine of some multiple of an angle then degrees aren't much harder to use, proviso you aren't using a power series to evaluate the function.

Data,

Are you a scientist by training (mathemetician, physicist, etc...)? If you don't mind.

Thanks.

Math-physics student.

Again I can agree to having used a less than optimum term but that is a far cry from having had no mathematical training or experience.

Alright, I won't pass judgement yet.

MacM wrote:

That is a long time for you to not be posting negative comment. Actually I have decided not to play your game. I have better things to do. The solution is 0.73r.


MacM, I know it was a type-o on your part. You meant: 2.73205...

Data wrote:

Alright, I won't pass judgement yet.

Passing judgement is a dicey thing. Take care...

The question was: "What is r?"
Your answer is:
The solution is 0.73 r.
Is not this the best representation of your Math skill?
"r is equal to 0.73r" !!!

All scientific calculators I've ever seen do degrees and radians.

Yeah, my bad.. But the degrees are still the default. To do radians, you must switch it to that mode.

This still remains a pointless argumentation about definitions, while the original question has been discussed and done a long time ago. Nothing but insults to expect from now on..

Good grief what is going on here?

What do you think the following means?

Solve solve for x where x is degrees and sin(x) = x/60

To me it looks like shorthand for the following.

Solve for x in sin(x*pi/180) = x/60, assuming radians for the sin function. O rassuming that x is degrees.

...Nothing but insults to expect from now on..

Probably right...

Solve for x in sin(x*pi/180) = x/60, assuming radians for the sin function.

Yes, and in order to solve you need to realise the following:

Firstly, that should be sin(x*pi/(180 degrees))= x/60, or just sin(x) = x/60 (they mean the same thing). As I've already said several times (at least in specific examples), "y degrees" is the same thing as the real number y*pi/180. The sine function is from the reals to the reals, so sin(x degrees) = sin(x*pi/180), very simply because x degrees and x*pi/180 are exactly the same thing. Now, keeping in mind what I've said above, if you want to solve for x in degrees, you need to notice that the left side of the equation, the result of the sine function, is a real number, represented as a real number. If you want to get a solution in the form "x = y degrees" then you need to convert the real number given by the sine function to degrees, ie. in order to get to your answer directly, you need to solve this:

180 degrees/pi*sin(x) = x/60

The reason that this is the same as the equation sin(x) = x/60 is precisely that "180 degrees/pi * sin(x)" is the same thing as sin(x), only represented in the notation of degrees.

Alternatively, you can solve for x over the real numbers, without transforming to degrees, then convert your answer at the end if you really need it expressed in the notation of degrees.

Now, if you were solving

sin(x) degrees = x/60

then x = 30 degrees would be a solution. That's the same as solving sin(x) = 3x/pi, of course (a solution is pi/6 = 30 degrees).

Added later:

Maybe this will clarify. Here are some valid equalities

60 degrees = pi/3
30 degrees = pi/6
20 degrees = pi/9
270 degrees = 3pi/2
180 degrees = pi
x degrees = pi*x/180

and clearly,

180 degrees = pi

=> (180 degrees)/pi = 1

=> sin(x) = 1sin(x) = (180 degrees / pi)sin(x),

ie. sin(x) = x/60 <=> (180 degrees/pi) sin(x) = x/60.

It's counterintuitive, but that's how it works. It's pretty clear why degrees are a waste of time in mathematics.

superL,
you posted:
MacM, I know it was a type-o on your part. You meant: 2.73205...

Can you send me a e-mail how you get this strange answer?

The question was: "What is r?"
Your answer is:

Is not this the best representation of your Math skill?
"r is equal to 0.73r" !!!

HeHe. You can't even figure out that if you use all 1K ohm resistors the answer gives you 730 ohms. If you use all 1 ohm resistors the answer is 0.73 ohms. R is anything you stipulate. The question is what is r. And I thought you knew so much. :bugeye:

Technically it should read 0.72R not 0.73r only because of the way you drew the resistance ladder. It should have been the other way around. R being the resulting resistance of the network where r were individual resistors.

MacM, I know it was a type-o on your part. You meant: 2.73205...

No. The function is R^2 + 2Rr - 2r^2 = 0

R = r*((3)^.5 - 1) = 0.732050808

If we're talking about this circuit:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3785&stc=1

Then the equivalent resistance at the port specified is r = R * 2.73205...

1) How (even with a dead short across the first vertical resistor) can you ever read less than 2R?

2) Iterate for N segments:

a)Working backwards from an arbitrary last segment you will have 3R in series.
Set this as RESULT

b) This appears in parallel with R. Compute as RESULT.

c) You now have RESULT in series with 2R. Compute as RESULT.

d) Go to b) and repeat N times.

If we're talking about this circuit:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3785&stc=1

Then the equivalent resistance at the port specified is r = R * 2.73205...

1) How (even with a dead short across the first vertical resistor) can you ever read less than 2R?

2) Iterate for N segments:

a)Working backwards from an arbitrary last segment you will have 3R in series.
Set this as RESULT

b) This appears in parallel with R. Compute as RESULT.

c) You now have RESULT in series with 2R. Compute as RESULT.

d) Go to b) and repeat N times.

Sorry but you don't know electronics.

Please explain.

Now everyone can estimate the education of MacM - there is exact solution of problem. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3803&stc=1)See, compare and tell me what kind human being one should be to write all this BS with laughing on the people and assaulting of people who know as to solve such problems and do it in right way?
And so MacM is in any area ... ignorant, ambitious, aggressive and assaulting.

Thanks for the general solution Yuriy. I actually took 5 minutes and wrote the iteration in C an ran 10000 iterations (I am an embedded systems engineer after all... :) )

r = (sqrt(3) +1)R = R*2.73205...

MacM, I try to be gentle with you, but your last post:

Sorry but you don't know electronics.

makes me think you are a pompous asshole who really dosen't know what he's talking about. I will listen to any defence you have on this point...

Well, MacM's purported answer is just the other solution to the quadratic in question. Of course, his answer is wrong because anything smaller than 2R is inadmissible (parallel resistance can't be less than zero, ie. in r = 2R + Rr/(R+r), you must have Rr/(R+r)>=0 => r >= 2R).

Just a note:

The "general" solution for the infinite chain example is not applicable to most real-world situations, except perhaps transmission line theory. The iterative approach will give an answer for any number of distributed segments (practical engineering once again...).

Guys,
as you understand I designed this problem specially to show what quality MacM's education in electronics (and actually - even in electrotechnics) is, when his culculator ... does not work or programms become to complicated.
You all sow the result. A simple physical analysis, like Data did, is out of his ability...
And now we will be witnessing a flux of posts with explanation how he was thinking right, but then thought wrong to get again right, to make typo at writing of equation to get right answer, etc, etc... And how all that happend because we all are jackasses and do errors and blame him for thinking right to see that it is not right at r becaming R and R becaming r and ... fuck all our asses! So, be prepared, my friends...

Hahahaha! :D

Data: You just do not understand that radians is a unit of angular measure. 30 degrees = pi/3 radians, not 30 degrees = pi/3. One revolution = 2pi radians, not 1 revolution = 2pi. Mathematicians invented the unit due to various conveniences. Just as natural logarithms were developed due to ease in computing them compared to base ten logs. Radians are a convenient unit for many purposes, no more, no less.

Dinosaur,

I agree with you.

You are wrong. (Edit: This sentence is wrong. Ignore it. The next one is important, though :))Angles have no unit. They are dimensionless.

Moreover, if angles were dimensionful then the equation sin(x) = x/60 would be total nonsense indeed. You've already agreed that sin(x) is dimensionless. If x, in degrees, is dimensionful, then tell me:

How can a dimensionful quantity, x/60, be equal to a dimensionless quantity, sin(x)?

Actually, let's just try to verify your answer of 30 degrees for the equation sin(x) = x/60:

LHS:

sin(x) = sin(30 degrees) = 0.5.

RHS:

x/60 = (30 degrees) / 60 = 0.5 degrees

Tell me, since when does 0.5 = 0.5 degrees?

Guys,
you came exactly to mine initial point. I already wrote about all this stuff and, honestly, there is no need in any further discussion as far as we got absolutely clear explanations of the mathematical origins of equations like
sin x = a*x
from Data. Let every of us takes it as it is and starts to apply it to his preferences. Major point is no matter what preferences each of us will have, no one should make errors like MacM did... OK?

Angles are unitless?

Let's see:

Degrees
Radians
Grads
Deg-Min-Sec

In sin(x), x is a number. How you interpret the result depends on the UNITS you are working in.

So you're telling me that sin(30 degrees) is equal to 0.5 degrees, because I'm working in degrees, but sin(pi/2 radians) is equal to 0.5 radians, because I'm working with those units? That's a really good way to come up with functions that aren't well-defined.

Yes, angles are dimensionless. I posted the standard definition of an angle (in Euclidean space) earlier:

Let u and v be nonzero vectors in Euclidean n-space (this can be generalised). Let their lengths be ||u|| and ||v|| respectively (defined in the usual way via the inner product). Then take u', v' to be the unit vectors in the directions of u and v, or, more precisely, u' = u/||u|| and v' = v/||v||. Then the angle between u and v is defined to be the arclength of the circular arc centered at the origin, sharing nonzero endpoints with u' and v'.

It should be clear that an angle is dimensionless.

You also seem to be confusing dimensionality with units. For example, "0.5cm" and "0.5 m" have the same dimension. They do not have the same unit. Both 1 radian and 1 degree are dimensionless, but they're nonunity scalar multiples of each other. The relationship is the same. Since they're dimensionless, they are each equal to some real number. Under the definition I've given, 1 radian is equal to 1 and 1 degree is equal to pi/180.

Let's try an alternate definition, just to see what happens:

---
Define the angle between the afformentioned u and v to instead be the following value, where L is the arclength discussed in the other definition (and T is the angle):

T = L*180/Pi
---

Under this definition, 1 degree = 1 and 1 radian = 180/pi.

If we then want to define a function such that f(x degrees) = f(x) and such that f otherwise shares properties with the sine function (ie. given an angle t between v and the x-axis in 2-space, we can find the length of the projection of a unit vector v onto the y-axis from the value of f(t)), let's look at what we need:

Clearly, we must have

f(x degrees) = f(x) = sin(x degrees) = sin(pi*x/180)
f(x radians) = f(180x/pi) = sin(x radians) = sin(x)

which immediately leads to

f(x) = sin(x*pi/180) != sin(x)

ie. f(x) is not sin(x). It is a different function.

Do you see what's wrong with your reasoning now?

you came exactly to mine initial point.

Almost. Now the equation makes sense, just not in the way Dinosaur thought. :)

Data:

That's super and I agree. I was taking exception only to :

You are wrong. Angles have no unit. They are dimensionless.

Just the red part. Just some simple wording, thats all. Read my post. Units. We were talking about units.

Thanks for the general solution Yuriy. I actually took 5 minutes and wrote the iteration in C an ran 10000 iterations (I am an embedded systems engineer after all... :) )

r = (sqrt(3) +1)R = R*2.73205...

MacM, I try to be gentle with you, but your last post:



makes me think you are a pompous asshole who really dosen't know what he's talking about. I will listen to any defence you have on this point...

No. I may owe you an apology. It was not I that made the typo but the source I quoted. Since it seemed to be a canned solution I didn't check it out. It indeed showed the formulation and 0.73 result I quoted but in looking further I see others state your 2.73 figure. It seems the first one I looked at had to be in error. The the bulk of solutions are 2.73.

You are correct. Somehow they had -1 not +1?

Just the red part. Just some simple wording, thats all. Read my post. Units. We were talking about units.

Ah. Sorry :)

No prob.

superL,
you posted:

Can you send me a e-mail how you get this strange answer?

What you disagree?

Now everyone can estimate the education of MacM - there is exact solution of problem. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3803&stc=1)See, compare and tell me what kind human being one should be to write all this BS with laughing on the people and assaulting of people who know as to solve such problems and do it in right way?
And so MacM is in any area ... ignorant, ambitious, aggressive and assaulting.

I'll not defend my response to SL it was unjustified but my responses to you are totally justified. You are a pompus Not posted due to site limitiations.

You are correct. Somehow they had -1 not +1?

Stop by a local high school and take a look at a grade 10 math textbook for "solutions to quadratic equations" or something similar. You should see where the error pops up.

Well, MacM's purported answer is just the other solution to the quadratic in question. Of course, his answer is wrong because anything smaller than 2R is inadmissible (parallel resistance can't be less than zero, ie. in r = 2R + Rr/(R+r), you must have Rr/(R+r)>=0 => r >= 2R).

I only posted an incorrect answer. It wasn't my answer I didn't even try to solve it, just as I told Yuriy I wouldn't. But you make sense what they did was show the result as (sqrt(3)-1) =0.73 and it should have been (sqrt(3)+1)=2.73.

Guys,
as you understand I designed this problem

You didn't design the problem remember you copied it.

specially to show what quality MacM's education in electronics (and actually - even in electrotechnics) is, when his culculator ... does not work or programms become to complicated.

You neither showed anything about my education nor experience and knowledge of electronics. As I told you I wasn't going to waste time solving something that has already been solved. The only thing this shows is my damned bad luck at quoting a source with an error (The only damn one I have found since to do so).

You all sow the result. A simple physical analysis, like Data did, is out of his ability...

That sort of thing is what I do all the time twit. That is how I first got the answer in my GWBasic program for the Sin(X) problem, so your comments are shown to be false innuendo and slander.

And now we will be witnessing a flux of posts with explanation how he was thinking right but then thought wrong to get again right, to make typo at writing of equation to get right answer, etc, etc...

Nope, I just told it like it was. I didn't try to solve it but posted results from a bad source.

And how all that happend because we all are jackasses..

Nope only you are the jackass. I have given my apology to SL. He stands good in my book. You do not. You ALWAYS are excessively negative and over the top with exagerations and flase innuendo. SL at least gave the benefit of the doubt that I had made a typo. I hadn't, I merely typed (copied) and incorrect solution.

R becaming r and ... fuck all our asses! So, be prepared, my friends...

This is the only apology I owe you. My comments were based on looking at the following:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3805&stc=1

However, I have gone back and looked at the one you had copied and R and r are reversed. It is my opinion however, that your source is in error. The "R" should be the result and "r" is the components.

Data: The following is your idea, not mine (I am ignoring your typo. I make them also).So you're telling me that sin(30 degrees) is equal to 0.5 degrees, because I'm working in degrees, but sin(pi/2 radians) is equal to 0.5 radians, because I'm working with those units? That's a really good way to come up with functions that aren't well-defined. sin(30 degrees) = .5 and sin(pi/6 radians) = .5 and sin(1/12 revolutions) = .5 The value on the right side is dimensionless (Id est: Has no units). It is not degrees, radians, or Lower Slobovian pkzts.

BTW: The sin function can be defined using Cartesian coordinates as x/Sqr(x² + y²), ignoring the concept of radians and power series, which can be derived from the analytical geometry definition. This is a clumsy approach to the trig functions, but is similar to what might still be used in texts for engineers, who do not concern themselves with radians and power series.

sin(30 degrees) = .5 and sin(pi/6 radians) = .5 and sin(1/12 revolutions) = .5 The value on the right side is dimensionless (Id est: Has no units). It is not degrees, radians, or Lower Slobovian pkzts.

Of course the value on the right side is dimensionless. So is the argument to the sine function. 30 degrees, pi/6 radians, and 1/12 revolutions are all dimensionless. They do not have the same unit, though. The sine function is from R to R. It is not from some arbitrary dimension to R. Under the definition used in every circumstance I've ever seen, the sine function is defined such that sin(x) = sin(x radians) and x degrees = 180*x/pi. That's why mathematicians never complain about writing down "radian" measures without units: because they are dimensionless and the transformation to get to radians is the identity. sin(x) where x is real never means the same thing as sin(x degrees). As I did above, you can certainly define a function (call it f) such that f(x degrees) = f(x) and f has the same properties as the sine function otherwise. If you do so, though, you are no longer dealing with the sine function.

And yeah, you can define the sine function with coordinates like that, but it hardly lets you ignore the concept of angles. The function will still be a function of real numbers (that happent to be angles in lots of circumstances).

Added later

It seems that we may have some disagreement on what the term "dimensionless" means. If we are operating over the real numbers, we can choose an arbitrary unit for all of our numbers, and it doesn't change anything. We don't even have to write it down.

Now, in saying that something is dimensionless with respect to our numbering system (and really I should write this every time I call something dimensionless) I mean that its units are some constant multiple of the arbitrary unit used in our numbering system.

Generally in mathematics, the unit of a number is defined to be "units." When dealing with angles, this is not usually so. Instead we call the unit of a number "radians," such that x radians = x = x units. Then, x = x radians = x*180/pi degrees, ie. 1 = 1 radian = 180/pi degrees, and so the unit of "degrees" is a scalar multiple of the unit of radians and of the arbitrary unit assumed for our number system. Hence by the definition, "x degrees" is a dimensionless quantity (and to be precise, I should really say "with respect to our number system" or something like that, but as long as you know what I mean it should be okay).

Again as I did above, you can instead choose to define angles such that x degrees = x = x units, but in doing so, and assuming that you want to use the trigonometric functions for the same things, you end up with different functions.

Now, let's take an example of things that don't have the same dimension:

Let x metres be denoted by x. With respect to this system, y kilograms is not dimensionless, since 1 kilogram is not a scalar multiple of 1 metre. 1 centimetre is, of course, dimensionless, on the other hand.

Guys,
I told you that MacM has no clue what he is saying about...
1. The equation he is referring to
No. The function is R^2 + 2Rr - 2r^2 = 0
R = r*((3)^.5 - 1) = 0.732050808
has both roots for R ... unphysical! (and even trick r↔R does not save stupidity of this equation!)
2. He said:
It was not I that made the typo but the source I quoted.
So, he was using some ... source.
Someone he asked for help? If so, this one could make mistake, but MacM proved that he is incapable to check out what he gets from his "sources".
If he hints that it was book or article, I do not buy it - there can not be issued book with such stupid errors...
3. But what is funny in his posts that it is the following:
I first got the answer in my GWBasic program for the Sin(X) problem.

So, first he has sworn in thread on sin x that his stupid answer, he actually posted, was posted as he ... posted the right one and then deleted it so fast that nobody sow it.
And now he self-proclaimed himself a winner: he first got the right answer!
This "MacM-built" histories are typical for all his threads in our Forum: a little bit falsification, a little bit mystification, a little bit lie - and MacM won and we all lose! What a great MacM is! Can you imagine, what if people like me will not arguing with him, what a crank anti-science would fulfil pages of our Forum?!

Dinosaur wrote:

...This is a clumsy approach to the trig functions, but is similar to what might still be used in texts for engineers, who do not concern themselves with radians and power series.

Huh? Whaaa??? What kind of engineers are you thinking of? :bugeye:

The "R" should be the result and "r" is the components.

What exactly do you mean by "should?"

Data,

Could you please include the source of the quote in your posts?

superluminal: Perhaps you are not aware of engineers who design mechanisms, design and supervise the construction of bridges, and do other very practical functions. These men do not care about power series definitions of trig functions. they mostly work with angles less that 90 degrees and often forget that angles can be negative, although they probably learned about such concepts in school. To them trig functions are defined by the ratios of sides of triangles.

BTW: I am more of a theoretical mathematician, but have some engineering back ground.

Data: I give up on this argument. You just do not now (and I guess never will) understand that angular measures have units and the value of the sin function is not associated with any units.

I suppose that I have muddied the waters a bit by using the term dimensionless, which in some contexts is used to describe a number independent of units, but this is a side issue.

Guys,
I told you that MacM has no clue what he is saying about...
1. The equation he is referring to

has both roots for R ... unphysical! (and even trick r↔R does not save stupidity of this equation!)
2. He said:

So, he was using some ... source.
Someone he asked for help? If so, this one could make mistake, but MacM proved that he is incapable to check out what he gets from his "sources".
If he hints that it was book or article, I do not buy it - there can not be issued book with such stupid errors...
3. But what is funny in his posts that it is the following:

So, first he has sworn in thread on sin x that his stupid answer, he actually posted, was posted as he ... posted the right one and then deleted it so fast that nobody sow it.
And now he self-proclaimed himself a winner: he first got the right answer!
This "MacM-built" histories are typical for all his threads in our Forum: a little bit falsification, a little bit mystification, a little bit lie - and MacM won and we all lose! What a great MacM is! Can you imagine, what if people like me will not arguing with him, what a crank anti-science would fulfil pages of our Forum?!


Look you pathetic piece of Not posted due to site limitations I have posted an extract of the paper I took that information from. It was in error and I have agreed so. The above formulation is not mine it was theirs.

As regards Sin(X) I also posted the program I wrote which produced the answers both of them. So knock off the HS. You are a complete loser.

What exactly do you mean by "should?"

I mean that it normally the way one sees it written. The "R" is the resulting resistance and "r" would be one of several components. At the same time it is not always normal to even show capital versus small letters but to differentiate Re (R equivelent or effective) and R's, but where a capital R and small r's are used the "R" is the result.

Data: I give up on this argument. You just do not now (and I guess never will) understand that angular measures have units and the value of the sin function is not associated with any units.

Alright, I won't argue about it anymore, if you don't want to. I will refer you to the SI system of units, though, which defines radians as follows:

1 radian = (1 m)(1 m^(-1)) = 1

reference: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html

It states explicitly that


(a) The radian and steradian may be used advantageously in expressions for derived units to distinguish between quantities of a different nature but of the same dimension; some examples are given in Table 4.
(b) In practice, the symbols rad and sr are used where appropriate, but the derived unit "1" is generally omitted.



Data,

Could you please include the source of the quote in your posts?


Sure :) The one in the previous post was MacM.

Guys,
do you recognized what MacM just did?
After he edited his old post and inserted here citation from work he took his solution (so called "source") he gave as the direct prove that he, "the great specialist in field of electronics", inventor of some electronics device, can not recognize that there is a fundamental difference between chain that was offered to be solved and chain he found to ... copy the solution!
The case is that BOTH solutions are absolutely right ones!
But mine one is for offered chain, and MacM's quoted as solution for my chain is right for ... absolutely another chain (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3811&stc=1)! See explanation HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3813&stc=1).
That is quality of his knowledge of electronics!

Hahahahahahah, yeah you're right, Yuriy. That extra path makes all the difference :)

Guys,
do you recognized what MacM just did?

Yes "Guys" look at what Yuriy has tried to do.

After he edited his old post and inserted here citation from work he took his solution (so called "source")

Perhaps you best explain this comment. What post do you claim I have altered?

he gave as the direct prove that he, "the great specialist in field of electronics", inventor of some electronics device, can not recognize that there is a fundamental difference between chain that was offered to be solved and chain he found to ... copy the solution!
The case is that BOTH solutions are absolutely right ones!
But mine one is for offered chain, and MacM's quoted as solution for my chain is right for ... absolutely another chain (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3811&stc=1)! See explanation HERE (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3813&stc=1).
That is quality of his knowledge of electronics!

Yes it does appear to be different but then nobodyelse noticed either. A big so what. I did no calculations and your post has nothing to do with my knowledge of electronics. My patents and equipment built says more than missing an input shunt resistor on this ladder diagram or your unsupported innuendos.

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=55

In fact it is you that have tried to decieve everyone.

See your Post

superL,
you posted:

“ MacM, I know it was a type-o on your part. You meant: 2.73205... ”


Can you send me a e-mail how you get this strange answer?

You want to act like you knew the correct answer all along but your post shows you didn't understand SL's results.

You are nothing but a mouthy fraud.

It's our job to look at your solution and tell you why you're wrong? I didn't even open it, mainly because I figured they had just taken the wrong solution to the quadratic that pops up, as I said earlier.

It's our job to look at your solution and tell you why you're wrong? I didn't even open it, mainly because I figured they had just taken the wrong solution to the quadratic that pops up, as I said earlier.

I'm not concerned about that. I am concerned that others don't let Yuriy slide by on his jumping on the bandwagon like he knew the correct answer all along.

That is two fuck-ups in a row for me so I need to slow down a bit I guess.

And now we have another MacM’s intrigue.
Now he is trying to divert people’s attention from his miserable failure as an electronics specialists and his absolutely incapability to do any algebraic analysis (his post:
The solution is 0.73r. )
… by accusing me:
In fact it is you that have tried to decieve everyone. … You want to act like you knew the correct answer all along but your post shows you didn't understand SL's results.
and
. I am concerned that others don't let Yuriy slide by on his jumping on the bandwagon like he knew the correct answer all along.
So, people, forget MacM, look what Yuriy does: he did not know actual solution and wanted “his jumping on the bandwagon like he knew the correct answer all along”, for what he tried to get it from superluminal! What a bad dishonest man Yuriy is! Worse than I, MacM, am!

This method of decieving peoples attention from his errors MacM used many times in this Forum. And I knew that very well, as many of you knew it. So, I prepared one more lesson for this crank.
I really wanted to know superluminal’s program, but now I lost my interest after he said “I spent 5 minutes on it”. The point is that programming chains like I have offered – so called “planar chains” - is easy and does not contain any unusual tricks; it is routine work, and superL knows it very well. I was wondering, may be, just may be he discovered some method that will be useful at calculations of so called “non-planar chains” – the problem, solution of which is not known yet and we are not even close to it…. But such a program can not be written ... in 5 minutes!...
Superl understands what I am about… That is why I asked him to show me his way…
But I knew also who MacM is: he for sure will use this my question as a motive to blame me something dirty, just as indeed did!
And to punish him for this, I did the following.
I asked superluminal about his way at February 13, 06:04 PM:

Yuriy Yesterday, 06:04 PM
Registered User (893 posts) reply
superL,
you posted:
“MacM, I know it was a type-o on your part. You meant: 2.73205...”
Can you send me a e-mail how you get this strange answer?

(Look at time!)
But before that, at February 13, 06:01 PM I sent to myself the following e-mail message:
02-13-05 self-message
06:01 PM Yuriy
Yuriy February 13, 06:01 PM
Registered User (893) forward reply
The solution of problem is
r = (3^1/2 + 1) R
posted at 6:00 pm February 13, 2005
(Look at time!)
That message stored in my e-mail box on this Forum and I am asking James R to check it out and inform members of Forum is it true or it is not!
(You can ask me: How I thought about all that beforehand?
Answer is very simple: If you would live 47 years among people as MacM you will learn too…)
So, now all of you clearly see what a junk man MacM is and what he is capable to blame his oponents…. Very, very evil man…

That message stored in my e-mail box on this Forum and I am asking James R to check it out and inform members of Forum is it true or it is not!…


That is fine. Should he oblige you I would hope he has the decency to also respond to my request made earlier to restore my original post to the first problem. Then you can look for some other routine. This one is worn out.

also respond to my request made earlier to restore my original post to the first problem.
Wouh!
Only MacM can equalize the looking in server for something that presumably is there with looking in server for something that presumably was there!
Each his post on any subject delivers some prove of his immunity to logical thinking…

And now we have another MacM’s intrigue.
Now he is trying to divert people’s attention from his miserable failure as an electronics specialists and his absolutely incapability to do any algebraic analysis (his post:
)
… by accusing me:

and

So, people, forget MacM, look what Yuriy does: he did not know actual solution and wanted “his jumping on the bandwagon like he knew the correct answer all along”, for what he tried to get it from superluminal! What a bad dishonest man Yuriy is! Worse than I, MacM, am!

This method of decieving peoples attention from his errors MacM used many times in this Forum. And I knew that very well, as many of you knew it. So, I prepared one more lesson for this crank.
I really wanted to know superluminal’s program, but now I lost my interest after he said “I spent 5 minutes on it”. The point is that programming chains like I have offered – so called “planar chains” - is easy and does not contain any unusual tricks; it is routine work, and superL knows it very well. I was wondering, may be, just may be he discovered some method that will be useful at calculations of so called “non-planar chains” – the problem, solution of which is not known yet and we are not even close to it…. But such a program can not be written ... in 5 minutes!...
Superl understands what I am about… That is why I asked him to show me his way…
But I knew also who MacM is: he for sure will use this my question as a motive to blame me something dirty, just as indeed did!
And to punish him for this, I did the following.
I asked superluminal about his way at February 13, 06:04 PM:

(Look at time!)
But before that, at February 13, 06:01 PM I sent to myself the following e-mail message:

(Look at time!)
That message stored in my e-mail box on this Forum and I am asking James R to check it out and inform members of Forum is it true or it is not!
(You can ask me: How I thought about all that beforehand?
Answer is very simple: If you would live 47 years among people as MacM you will learn too…)
So, now all of you clearly see what a junk man MacM is and what he is capable to blame his oponents…. Very, very evil man…
uriy,
I have been following this post and the only deception I see is you claiminh some elevated position in ther eyes of your world. Your interest is not concerned with scienmce, your only interest sis in perpetuating the fraud that Yriy knows what he is talking about, Yuriy wants center stage and what is more embarrassung than forgetting one's lines? Having no lines to speak.

Yuriy, develop recognizable thinking and analytical abilities before you post anymore in this forum. Your demands for obedience and admiration linked with your personal and oathetic obsession to best MacM and any other person so rude as to challenge your silliness have reached a natural cut point. Would you pleae complete one or both of th4 following tasks? Post no more on this forum or go far, far away.

MacM I hope you see what a terrible, nasty, screaming, spoiled brat you have created in Yuriy. When did you respond to his red faced. foot stomping temper tantrum? You didn't disagree with Y with deference, with head bent sorrow, weeping for forgiveness, Your every breath was not a sobbing plea begging for forgiveness, praying that the grate nab accept apology. For this oversight on your part the rest of the forum now has to suffer in agony stressed from the fear that that Y will vent his next round of insults derision, and rude intemperate rambling at them.

MacM do you realize Yuriy has not uttered a single rational or cogent word containing a scintilla of scientific content on this forum, ever? Is this your fault MacM, or is Yuriy just wallowing around knee deep in a pool of his own bat guana, still trying to fly? It is really sickening, sickening I tell you. Hanging upside down he drops into the "pool" below, his arms wildly flapping, screaming and cursing at the top of his lungs he spews insults at the very concept of stall speed, well, I tell you, MacM it's just sickening. Yuriy should quit that foolish repetitious dialogue once and for all. Rather his intellectual abilities should be focussed on finessing the concept of 'airspeed'.

MacM you must have met some Communists in your life's experience, how do you say "airspeed" in communish?

Geintkiesel

Yuriy, develop recognizable thinking and analytical abilities before you post anymore in this forum. Your demands for obedience and admiration linked with your personal and oathetic obsession to best MacM and any other person so rude as to challenge your silliness have reached a natural cut point. Would you pleae complete one or both of th4 following tasks? Post no more on this forum or go far, far away.

I don't see how you can make posts like this in a thread where Yuriy hasn't done anything wrong, and MacM has repeatedly given incorrect answers to clearly stated questions.

I don't see how you can make posts like this in a thread where Yuriy hasn't done anything wrong, and MacM has repeatedly given incorrect answers to clearly stated questions.

HeHe. I can agree with you to a limited degree in this particular thread; however his post reflects the general distain others are developing for Yuriy's inability to stick to the issue and respond technically.

It is one thing to point out you think somebody screwed up but entirely another to berade, chastize that persons entire life and education, and to always toot your horn saying "Now I'll teach you the correct thinking", etc rather than just coming to the point.

While I certainly seem to gather most of Yuriy's distain it is his style and habit with anybody that disagrees with him. He becomes sarcastic even with other professional physicist that do not recognize him as the leading authority.

So his post is in response to the greater performance of Yuriy overall on these forums and not this one isolated thread.

To put this into perspective regarding this thread.

The program I wrote produced the correct answer. I did screw up when I changed units to degrees in this case but that hardly is a basis to then attack my education, intelligence and persona from time of birth which is what Yuriy does versus simply pointing out the error.

The second error was a mere oversight of the input shunt resistor in the ladder diagram, again hardly an earth shattering error showing no electronics education or ability.

Facts in my case do not support the degree of response being given by Yuriy. Facts infact show the opposite. This in no manner excuses the screwups I did make. See Thread