Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Daniel0

Typing math

Recommended Posts

I've added support for typesetting math using LaTeX on the forums.

 

Example:

[tex]\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n = e[/tex]

 

Outputs:

[tex]\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n = e[/tex]

 

Just in case anyone wanted to write some math that's a little more advanced than basic arithmetic.

 

Update:

 

The [tex] bbcode is now deprecated in favor of [math] and [imath]. The former is used for display mode, the latter is for inline mode.

 

Example of display mode:

[math]\sum_{n = 0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \left(1+\frac{1}{n}\right)^n = e[/math]

 

Inline mode is used for math in sentences, like you might want to say [imath]\frac{1+2}{5}\cdot7=\frac{21}{5}[/imath] within a sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a released SMF mod, or something you created? I could use it on my forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Splendid! Here's your skill badge!

 

math1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tex]1+1=2[/tex]

 

fear my skills.

 

[tex]1+1=3[/tex]

 

That's how I roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tex]\widetilde{\underline{\zeta\Gamma\alpha\gamma\sigma}}\sqrt[n]{\underline{|\phi}\int\underline{\Sigma\eta\tau}}[/tex]

 

That's how I roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's fine but...

[tex]-1 = 1[/tex]

[tex]-1 = i \cdot i = \sqrt{-1} \cdot \sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{-1 \cdot -1} = \sqrt{1} = 1[/tex]

 

I win...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except

 

[tex] i \not = \sqrt{-1}[/tex]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My calculator says otherwise...

 

See attachment... Stupid Texas Instruments didn't bother creating an x64 driver :(

 

[attachment deleted by admin]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... the definition is [tex]x^2 =  -1[/tex]

 

Saying that [tex] i  = \sqrt{-1}[/tex] is not incorrect as long as you make it clear, that [tex] \sqrt[/tex] operator is redefined here as compared to the one used for real numbers.

 

[tex]\sqrt{-x} = i \sqrt x[/tex] where [tex]0 < x \in \mathbb{R} [/tex]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tex]x^n = y \Leftrightarrow \sqrt[n]{x^n} = x = \sqrt[n]{y}[/tex], no?

 

It's because [tex]\sqrt{a} \cdot \sqrt{b} = \sqrt{a \cdot b}[/tex] is only true for [tex]a \in \Bbb{R}^+ \cup \{0\}[/tex] and [tex]b \in \Bbb{R}^+ \cup \{0\}[/tex] or something like that. That's the "trick" or whatever... There is another "proof" that says that any integer a equals any other integer b, I just can't remember that one, but there is of course an error in that one as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks as though two people had reasons to use the latex addon.  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tex]0+0=1[/tex]

 

Thats how I roll!

 

My mums Excel spreadsheets do this kind of thing all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[tex]0.\overline{999} = 1[/tex]

 

[tex]\frac3{9} = 0.\overline{333} [/tex]

 

[tex]\frac6{9} = 0.\overline{666} [/tex]

 

[tex]so[/tex]

 

[tex]\frac9{9} = 0.\overline{999}[/tex]

 

[tex]but[/tex]

 

[tex]\frac9{9} = \frac1{1} = 1[/tex]

 

Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's why patterns shouldn't be assumed based off of 2 terms ;p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually corbin, it's widely accepted among mathematicians that .999... = 1. ShadeSlayer's proof may be said to be flawed in the sense that it doesn't explain how the pattern he uses works.

 

A better version might be:

[tex]\frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{333}[/tex]

[tex]3 \cdot 0.\overline{333} = 3 \cdot \frac{1}{3} = \frac{3}{3} = 1[/tex]

 

Therefore:

[tex]0.\overline{999} = 1[/tex]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hrmmm....  Yeah....  Strange to me though since .999 (repeating) would never actually equal 1.  Then again, if I look at it that way, repeating .333 would never actually equal 1/3....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno if it helps your understanding, but 0.99 is closer to 1 than 0.9 is, so for each 9 you add, you get closer to 1. If you have an infinite amount of 9's then you are getting infinitely close to 1. Or if you want it in math terms:

 

[tex].9 = \frac{9}{10^1}[/tex]

[tex].09 = \frac{9}{10^2}[/tex]

[tex].009 = \frac{9}{10^3}[/tex]

etc.

 

[tex].9 + .09 + .009 = \frac{9}{10^1} + \frac{9}{10^2} + \frac{9}{10^3} = .999[/tex]

 

So:

[tex]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{9}{10^n} = 0.\overline{999} = 1[/tex]

 

You see that as [tex]n \to \infty[/tex] (analogous to "you are adding more 9's on the end") you are getting closer to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, we actually discussed this in class one day when talking about geometric sequences a while back.

 

 

And yes, as n -> inf., the number gets closer to 1, but it would never actually reach one.

 

 

Wouldn't .999 (repeating) = 1 - 1/inf, not 1?

 

 

 

(I do realize that obviously I'm arguing pointlessly since people accept .999 to be 1, just like .333 is assumed to be 1/3 [both repeating].  I guess  I just think that things should be left in fractional form ;p.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't .999 (repeating) = 1 - 1/inf, not 1?

 

Yeah, but that's the same thing because [tex]\frac{x}{\infty} = 0[/tex] and 1 - 0 = 1 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait....  x/inf is always assumed to be 0?

 

 

Ok then...  I shall now shut up ;p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.