latex syntax

DaveC426913

DaveC426913

Valued Senior Member
Where will I find it defined here?

I can get the formatting, just not the syntax to activate it.

[ TEX ]t_2-t_1[/TEX] or $$\Delta t$$
 
DaveC426913 said:
Where will I find it defined here?
Click to expand...
It isn't really defined here. I take it you mean you want to know how to write equations in TeX?

There are lots of intros on the web.

If you have a more specific question, ask away.
 
James R said:
It isn't really defined here. I take it you mean you want to know how to write equations in TeX?

There are lots of intros on the web.

If you have a more specific question, ask away.
Click to expand...
No. The syntax for equations is elsewhere.

What I was asking about was how you invoke them: i.e. [ TEX ][ /TEX ]

There's a long delay that occurs before it actually renders, where it looks like it isn't doing anything. I never know whether I've gotten it right until I finally see it rendering correctly.

Anyway, I figured it out, as is witnessed above. i.e.: [ TEX ][ /TEX ] (but without the spaces)
 
DaveC426913 said:
There's a long delay that occurs before it actually renders, where it looks like it isn't doing anything. I never know whether I've gotten it right until I finally see it rendering correctly.
Click to expand...
Reload the page and the latex will show up properly.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Haha. No. Once it has rendered it the first time, it doesn't need to do it again; it stores it with a unique ID.
Kind of like web pages are cached so they load faster thereafter.
Click to expand...
Kinda like storing information in memory?
Don't we cache information in our memories?
Don't we have a saying that "once you have learned to ride a bike, you never forget how."?
 
Write4U said:
Kinda like storing information in memory?
Don't we cache information in our memories?
Don't we have a saying that "once you have learned to ride a bike, you never forget how."?
Click to expand...
Not at all.

There is no learning here (which involves being able to apply that knowledge more broadly); there is only a simple record of a unique event. That unique recording does not in any way help toward any other task it's asked.

Example: You have been told that 1+1=2. For a few days or weeks after this (until that recording is purged), when asked what does 1+1 equal?, you can say '2'! But if asked anything else, such as what does 1+2 equal?, you will have no idea.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Not at all.

There is no learning here (which involves being able to apply that knowledge more broadly); there is only a simple record of a unique event. That unique recording does not in any way help toward any other task it's asked.

Example: You have been told that 1+1=2. For a few days or weeks after this (until that recording is purged), when asked what does 1+1 equal?, you can say '2'! But if asked anything else, such as what does 1+2 equal?, you will have no idea.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean and in that respect I agree.

However, nature itself seems to know what the answer is without needing to study mathematics.
0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 5 = 8, sound familiar? You can find it throughout nature. How does it do that?
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
I know what you mean and in that respect I agree.

However, nature itself seems to know what the answer is without needing to study mathematics.
0 + 1 = 1, 1 +1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 5 = 8, sound familiar? You can find it throughout nature. How does it do that?
Click to expand...
Nature didn't invent Latex. What does this have to do with the thread topic?
 
Write4U said:
I know what you mean and in that respect I agree.

However, nature itself seems to know what the answer is without needing to study mathematics.
0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3, 2 + 3 = 5, 3 + 5 = 8, sound familiar? You can find it throughout nature. How does it do that?
Click to expand...
You might be interested in this:
http://digg.com/video/why-gold-ratio-irrational

The second half is the mathematical demonstration, but the first half shows how/why may of nature's mechanisms can be represented to us by the Fibonacci Sequence.
It is simply the flower achieving an optimized seed arrangement. Plants that have a high seed-to-area ratio propagate better than plants that spend too much of their resources arranging too few seeds.
 
DaveC426913 said:
You might be interested in this:
http://digg.com/video/why-gold-ratio-irrational

The second half is the mathematical demonstration, but the first half shows how/why may of nature's mechanisms can be represented to us by the Fibonacci Sequence.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link.
It is simply the flower achieving an optimized seed arrangement. Plants that have a high seed-to-area ratio propagate better than plants that spend too much of their resources arranging too few seeds.
Click to expand...
I agree and tried to propose (albeit inadequately) that the same phenomenon of "movement in the direction of greatest satisfaction" occurs throughout the universe in the many forms as in the demonstration.

I always qualified my posits re the Fibonacci sequence(s) as a naturally occurring mathematical function. A flower does not "need" to know the mathematics, it just evolved to achieve an "optimized seed arrangement", which happens to lie in the FS.

If I recall, DNA also follows this efficient structure. Nothing mystical about it. It's one of the ways how the universe sorts itself into recurring patterns for greatest efficiency.

IMO, the beauty lies in our ability to discover these naturally forming efficiency patterns (functions) and represent them with our symbolic scientific descriptions as mathematical forms of growth functions, as well as being visually satisfying in the arts.
 
And hopefully of interest to you.
WHY DO FIBONACCI NUMBERS APPEAR IN PATTERNS OF GROWTH IN NATURE? A MODEL FOR TISSUE RENEWAL BASED ON ASYMMETRIC CELL DIVISION

BRUCE M. BOMAN, THIEN-NAM DINH, KEITH DECKER, BROOKS EMERICK, CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND, AND GILBERTO SCHLEINIGER
Click to expand...
Abstract.
While many examples of Fibonacci numbers are found in phenotypic structures of plants and animals, the dynamic processes that generate these structures have not been fully elucidated.
Click to expand...
This raises the question: What biologic rules and mathematical laws that control the growth and renewal of tissues in multi-cellular organisms give rise to these patterns of Fibonacci numbers? In nature the growth and self-renewal of cell populations leads to generation of hierarchical patterns in tissues that resemble the pattern of population growth in rabbits, which is explained by the classic Fibonacci sequence.
Click to expand...
Consequently, we conjectured a similar process exists at the cellular scale that explains tissue renewal. Accordingly, we created a model (cell division type) for tissue development based on the biology of cell division that builds upon the cell maturation concept posed in the Spears and Bicknell-Johnson model (“mating”-like design) for asymmetric cell division. In our model cells divide asymmetrically to generate a mature and an immature cell.
Click to expand...
Model output on the number of cells generated over time fits specific Fibonacci p-number sequences depending on the maturation time. A computer code was created to display model output as branching tree diagrams as a function of time. These plots and tables of model output illustrate that specific patterns and ratios of immature to mature cells emerge over time based on the cell maturation period.
Click to expand...
Conclusion: Simple mathematical laws involving temporal and spatial rules for cell division begin to explain how Fibonacci numbers appear in patterns of growth in nature
Click to expand...
https://www.fq.math.ca/Papers1/55-5/Boman.pdf

I just hope I haven't offended anyone with my fascination with these naturally occurring mathematical functions.
 
Last edited:
One last post.

is

...........symbolic art in the fibonacci sequence........

Note its resemblance to the neural memory storing of the brain as described by Dr Hameroff anesthesiologist) In this really interesting presentation, where I saw the Fibonacci sequence in nano-tubulars which he and Penrose believe may be tiny quantum computers. The Pyramid is shown @ 10:50
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top