[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 108
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Я получал картинки напоминающие желаемое тобой, когда экспериментировал с сигмоидой.
Глянь функцию вида y=x*(x^(n-1))/(1+abs(x^n)), добавь нужные смещения и коэффициенты на входе и на выходе и будет тебе щастье. В простейшем случае n=1.
I'm so inattentive...! Correct is y=x*abs(x^(n-1))/(1+abs(x^n)). I already believe the corrected one.
Nah... the one on the transporter... Well, don't, don't :)))
So about that one even Farnsworth agreed that it would take off, though only on the condition that it was with flies.
But if physics isn't involved at all, then it's necessary to announce the right answer.
I'm so inattentive...! Correct is y=x*abs(x^(n-1))/(1+abs(x^n)). The corrected one must be believed.
Well, it is clear. I have an area of definition x>0, so the modulus is not necessary.
It looks like the 4th degree at a certain value of the constant will do.
The correct answer comes from the conditions of the problem. For some reason everyone, including me, starts solving it forgetting about the preservation of conditions. This leads to arguments about how much the transporter will accelerate there and who is stronger, Schwarzenegger or AL-31F jet engine.
And the condition says that the speed of the transporter is equal to the speed (circumferential, or whatever you want to call it) of the wheels. It doesn't matter whether the engine is on or off, or what's rubbing against it. If this condition is met, it means that the plane is stationary relative to the ground. If the plane is moving apart (and therefore moves relative to the ground), then the speed of wheels is greater than the speed of the conveyor belt, which is contrary to the condition. So, either reduce thrust, or it will be a totally different problem. In this one, no one is flying anywhere.
The correct answer comes from the conditions of the problem. For some reason everyone, including me, starts solving it forgetting about the preservation of conditions. This leads to arguments about how much the transporter will accelerate there and who is stronger, Schwarzenegger or AL-31F jet engine.
And the condition says that the speed of the transporter is equal to the speed (circumferential, or whatever you want to call it) of the wheels. It doesn't matter whether the engine is on or off, or what's rubbing against it. If this condition is met, it means that the plane is stationary relative to the ground. If the plane is moving apart (and therefore moves relative to the ground), then the speed of wheels is greater than the speed of the conveyor belt, which is contrary to the condition. So, either reduce thrust, or it will be a totally different problem. In this one, nobody is flying anywhere.
There is no contradiction.
Ну это понятно. У меня область определения x>0, так что модуль не обязательно.
Похоже, что 4-я степень при определенном значении константы подойдет.
OK! What's the turkey?
However... that could get you banned in this thread... ;)
...... the speed of the wheels is greater than the speed of the conveyor belt....
Why? In relation to what?
Если самолет разоняется (а значит и движется относительно земли), то скорость колес больше скорости ленты транспортера,
Well, that's where it's wrong
Почему? Относительно чего?
Conveyor belt speed - relative to the ground. Vt
Axis velocity relative to the conveyor belt. VoAxis velocity relative to the ground. Vo' (this is our take-off speed).
is the circumferential speed of the wheels in relation to the axle. Vk
Vo' = Vo - Vt
Vo = Vk (no slip)
in total, as long as Vk == Vt, Vo` ==0.
and not at all because the engine cannot accelerate, but only because this is the condition of the problem.
vegetate, ещё мою задачу не решили, про пузырь с мухами.
Это была задача №1, на 44-й странице. Её пока никто не решил :))))))
No one is going to solve it, Richie, it's pointless.