how many times would you have to half the number ten before you get EXACT 0?
how many times
Umm... you never would?
wow you got it right first time
I assume "x" to be the number of times that 10 needs to be divided by 2 to get 0.
from the given requirements -
10/(2^x)=0
=> 2^x=10/0
=> x(ln 2) = (ln 10) - (ln 0)
=> x = {(ln 10) - (ln 0)}/(ln 2)
now from the calculator (in Micro$oft Windows) - (ln 0) = "Invalid input for function."
=> x = {(ln 10) - ("Invalid input for function.")}/(ln 2)
=> x= {2.3025850929940456840179914546844 - ("Invalid input for function.")}/(0.69314718055994530941723212145818)
there you go, much simplified.
from the given requirements -
10/(2^x)=0
=> 2^x=10/0
=> x(ln 2) = (ln 10) - (ln 0)
=> x = {(ln 10) - (ln 0)}/(ln 2)
now from the calculator (in Micro$oft Windows) - (ln 0) = "Invalid input for function."
=> x = {(ln 10) - ("Invalid input for function.")}/(ln 2)
=> x= {2.3025850929940456840179914546844 - ("Invalid input for function.")}/(0.69314718055994530941723212145818)
there you go, much simplified.
Oups I don't understand .... 
mortheus does you point prove you cvan get exact zero or not because it is physivcal impossible becauswe let see:
10/2 = 5
5/2 = 2.5
2.5/2 = 1.25
1.25/2 = 0.625
0.625/2 = 0.3125
0.3125/2 = 0.15625
0.15625/2 = 0.078125
etc etc etc etc
you get the points if you hald the number you cant get a whole number it just will keep going as a decimal
10/2 = 5
5/2 = 2.5
2.5/2 = 1.25
1.25/2 = 0.625
0.625/2 = 0.3125
0.3125/2 = 0.15625
0.15625/2 = 0.078125
etc etc etc etc
you get the points if you hald the number you cant get a whole number it just will keep going as a decimal
| homer09001 wrote: |
| mortheus does you point prove you cvan get exact zero or not |
well...your original question was "how many times would you have to half the number ten before you get EXACT 0?", and this I'd tried to answer.
that was an attempted joke.
and I see I've failed at that...I give up
don't take it seriously.
The one word answer to "can you get exact zero or not" is "theoretically yes, but practically no."
ok...that's 5 words.
Dont worry mOrpheuS, not everyone here is mathematiclly disinclined, I got your joke. Dividing by zero lets you do all sorts of fun things doesnt it? Like this:
Let x=1
x-1=0, x^2-1=0
Therefore:
x-1=x^2-1
Factoring time kiddies!
x-1=(x-1)(x+1)
Divide by (x-1)
1=x+1
subtract 1 from both sides
0=x
substitute for x
0=1
Let x=1
x-1=0, x^2-1=0
Therefore:
x-1=x^2-1
Factoring time kiddies!
x-1=(x-1)(x+1)
Divide by (x-1)
1=x+1
subtract 1 from both sides
0=x
substitute for x
0=1
| demex wrote: |
| Dont worry mOrpheuS, not everyone here is mathematiclly disinclined, I got your joke. Dividing by zero lets you do all sorts of fun things doesnt it? Like this:
Let x=1 x-1=0, x^2-1=0 Therefore: x-1=x^2-1 Factoring time kiddies! x-1=(x-1)(x+1) Divide by (x-1) 1=x+1 subtract 1 from both sides 0=x substitute for x 0=1 |
heh, mathematically disinclined ? on the contrary, I think we have a lot of people with mathematical inclination here. I haven't seen a single thread discussing mathematics (not even trivial ones) on any other forum.
and having interest in a subject is the main part, proficiency then comes effortlessly.
Well maybe I used the wrong words...How about...so unpracticed in mathematics that they forget that you cannot divide by zero?
Is there any particular reason why you chose to use lon (or is it lawn?) over log?
Is there any particular reason why you chose to use lon (or is it lawn?) over log?
| demex wrote: |
| Well maybe I used the wrong words...How about...so unpracticed in mathematics that they forget that you cannot divide by zero?
Is there any particular reason why you chose to use lon (or is it lawn?) over log? |
The original poster never had an intention of dividing by zero.
It was me who came up with that during my derivations. (although that's bound to happen when trying to solve such an equation).
and no, there was no particular reason for using "natural log" (that's what we used to call it in our schooldays). Just that log10 was never used in any mathematical derivation since high school uptil advanced mathematics in engineering. Just for simplicity (since differentiation of logarithmic functions doesn't need a numerical factor if using natural log).
Or maybe just as a convention.
Infact "log" used to mean "ln" to us, unless subscripted with 10.
and most importantly, the numerical value of (ln 10) looks more intimidating than that of (log 10).
good one... never though of it
| mOrpheuS wrote: | ||
The original poster never had an intention of dividing by zero. It was me who came up with that during my derivations. (although that's bound to happen when trying to solve such an equation). and no, there was no particular reason for using "natural log" (that's what we used to call it in our schooldays). Just that log10 was never used in any mathematical derivation since high school uptil advanced mathematics in engineering. Just for simplicity (since differentiation of logarithmic functions doesn't need a numerical factor if using natural log). Or maybe just as a convention. Infact "log" used to mean "ln" to us, unless subscripted with 10. and most importantly, the numerical value of (ln 10) looks more intimidating than that of (log 10). |
Wowowowowow hold up guys im confused bearing in mind when i sat my gcse's i only got a D in maths Damn algebra
Well mOrpheuS, when I made the comment about division by zero I was commenting about how he didn't get the joke. I always liked dividing by zero. Never acommplished anything.
You'll get the stupidest things like 7/0=undefined and 2/0=undefined therefore 2=7
About the Natural log versus log10, I haven't worked with logs longhand (its all done on calculators now) so I never knew the joy of working with "e". Maybe I will get the chance in math 31 (first level university I believe)
I haven't gotten to dirivitives yet so I'm not exactly sure what you did or why, I just clued in the divison by zero, which is usually the butt of most math jokes. Zero and tangent. Though, I never get jokes involving tangent...
You'll get the stupidest things like 7/0=undefined and 2/0=undefined therefore 2=7
About the Natural log versus log10, I haven't worked with logs longhand (its all done on calculators now) so I never knew the joy of working with "e". Maybe I will get the chance in math 31 (first level university I believe)
I haven't gotten to dirivitives yet so I'm not exactly sure what you did or why, I just clued in the divison by zero, which is usually the butt of most math jokes. Zero and tangent. Though, I never get jokes involving tangent...
| demex wrote: |
| I always liked dividing by zero. Never acommplished anything. |
well, don't be so disappointed for not having achieved much by /0.
I agree, it is very fascinating especially if you have some free time
| demex wrote: |
| About the Natural log versus log10, I haven't worked with logs longhand (its all done on calculators now) |
Hey ! even I'm not that old, if you are under the impression that I come from the age of the "slide-rule", please let me clear it up. it's been only 2 years since I finished college, I'm not that old ! I'm still as young at heart as any college grad (atleast that's what I like to believe)
| demex wrote: |
| Though, I never get jokes involving tangent... |
tangent jokes, eh ? never heard of those before...
perhaps you can share some if you know. |