bgz wrote:Yes, if you let b = -c, the two functions are equivalent.
That's all it takes to show they're equivalent.
You're harping on very low level fundamental sh*t that's taken for granted.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the definition.
let y = f(x) = ax - c = 0
Is functionally equivalent if b = -c in the original equation ax = c (edit... came back and looked on it... though defined previously, it's not in this post)
f(x) = ax + b = 0
I misquoted a definition after a night of sitting with you azzhats drinking and smoking... I acknowledged as such without you saying a word about it.
Just admit you're trying to catch me up in some low level detail to show that any argument that I had at a higher level detail that may put doubt in one of your beliefs. That says more about your insecurities in your own beliefs than it does about mine. Seriously, you quizzed me all the way down, I gave you plenty to expand on, but you chose to take it down to the lowest of levels before you started your expansion... that's telling.
You could have quizzed me on complex conjugates or something... but you didn't.
Not sure where the insecurities part came from.
After listening to the drunk and stoned random babble on how the schrodinger equation proved or disproved the existence of God, then something about electrons being a quantum particle, followed by talk of wave functions, the CERN particle accelerator, rifts in time, parallel universes and any other big physics words you learned from the most recent book you read… I felt you should be able to try to explain the basics of linear algebra.
So I admit, I was trying to catch you on some low level details. It was an easy (but not fair) target. Figured that you should be able to come up with the cookie cutter definition of a straight line (which you probably couldn’t walk at the time) before jumping into quantum mechanics or complex conjugates and how they relate to a Supreme Being.
So, yeah, I’m completely secure with my understanding of linear algebra.
Are you?
Find the equation of the line passing through (1,2) with a slope of –(4/5).
Write your answer in slope-intercept ( y = m*x + b )
If not, then maybe it’s a bit too soon to tackle complex conjugates or particle wave duality.
(I'm not a high energy physics guy, most of my background is in materials. The closest I've come to high energy physics is when I cut my teeth working on NbTi, Nb3Ti low temp superconductors - the wire used to make the magnets for CERN. Then I rode the wave of contracts, SBIR's, CRADA's, etc... and any other funding we could milk out of the government and private companies to do R&D on high temp BSCCO and YBCO superconductors.
Wanna get trippy, read up how they think superconductivity works: BCS theory and Cooper pairs. More quantum mechanical stuff within condensed states of matter)
