Comment Example SPU Code (Score 1) 50
For anyone who wants to see what SPU code looked like, here is a an old article of mine from IBM's DeveloperWorks on the subject:
For anyone who wants to see what SPU code looked like, here is a an old article of mine from IBM's DeveloperWorks on the subject:
It's not supposed to be "impressive", and if the amount of plastic in the oceans has certain environmental consequences, the Earth doesn't do per capita calculations when deciding environmental impacts.
But yes, by all means: let's keep focusing on straws and bags, ignoring China and India on greenhouse gas emissions -- because they are "developing", or they have more people -- and rejecting nuclear power.
By analyzing the waste found in the rivers and surrounding landscape, researchers were able to estimate that just 10 river systems carry 90% of the plastic that ends up in the ocean.
Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong; and two in Africa â" the Nile and the Niger.
Wrong. GDPR explicitly limits it to "data provided by the user", which (at least according to the position taken by the European Data Protection Board, which previously was the board that worked to implement GDPR) includes data provided incidentally, such as which web pages the user load, but very excludes derived data such as credit scores or other analysis computed from the provided data (as long as they themselves in isolation are not personally identifiable information).
...please.
Anywhere where you have a second derivative where the variable with which you are taking the derivative with respect to is dependent on another variable. You would previously have to use Faa di Bruno's formula to properly take care of this situation. Now you can just do algebraic manipulations.
I recently had another paper which sat for 4 MONTHS in the editors inbox, before he decided he just wasn't interested.
What needs to happen is to have a small change in policy like this:
1) You can submit to multiple journals at once
2) A journal makes an offer to send it for review
3) Accepting an offer @2 requires that you remove your submission from other journals
Then the procedure goes on as before. This will prevent editors from wasting everyone's time.
What's super-super frustrating is that I had a *different* paper that got rejected because it needed a proof of a result, but the proof was outside the scope of the first paper. So, I have a different paper that was waiting an extra 4 months because it needs this other paper to be reviewed first.
The only reason I don't just self-publish everything is that peer review helps me convince myself that I'm not crazy.
If you read my paper, I actually suggest this as a shortened form of my own. This notation is Arbogast's, and is woefully underused. I show how to interconvert between Arbogast notation and my own in the paper.
Not quite. d(1) *is* zero. The differential of a constant is zero, basically by definition. If e is an infinitesimal, 0/e is still zero. However, d^2x/dx^2 != d(dx/dx)/dx. d(dx/dx)/dx, using the new notation, is "d^2x/dx^2 - (dx/dx)(d^2x/dx^2)", which is obviously zero by inspection.
The problem with e-book math books is trying to make it look right on a small screen. If you just want a PDF of it, send me an email and I'll send you one, especially if you consider telling other people how great it is. Unfortunately, you can't just tell Amazon to take your PDF and make it an e-book
I've actually got a second paper on partial derivatives just about ready to go. It was originally part of this paper, but it got a little long, and I wanted to rethink and clarify a few concepts. Anyway, partial differentials have the same notational problem *plus* one more. The problem is that there are several partial differentials which all go by the same name. Once you name them properly (i.e., give them each a distinct name) the problems go away.
My coauthor has been doing this to good effect. His book "Controllability of Dynamic Systems: The Green's Function Approach" utilizes it. My role in mathematics is primarily in teaching high schoolers, so I don't spend a lot of time with differential equations. That's also the reason I *have* a co-author. I needed someone to tell me I wasn't crazy
Except that, in the first derivative, it *is* used as a fraction. Otherwise you couldn't reformulate your equation for integration (i.e., you have to multiply both sides by dx, which is treating it as a fraction). So, to say that in one case, it is a fraction, but this next case it isn't, but still written as a fraction, even though it *could* be written as a fraction, but we just decided not to, seems strange, at least to me.
You never did a second derivative test to determine whether you are at a local minima or maxima?
Most intro calculus books at least show the notation for the second derivative. However, it is true that they rarely take it far enough to hit any problems with the notation.
I actually figured this out while trying to find a good way to explain the notation to my students, which is a homeschool co-op class (I have a range of 9-12 graders - the 9th grader is an exception, but she is ridiculously smart). I read through numerous calculus textbooks trying to find the justification for the notation, and none of them even attempted it. So, I decided to try it out myself, and found out that the standard notation was wrong.
"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai
