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.

Hopefully, we can have a large get together in Vegas next year. I’m recently divorced and I understand things when that happens a trip to Vegas is mandatory?

^

See? THIS is why you are swimming in poon. Women LOVE ❤️ guys use sexy talk like this.

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)

You’re looking for the nerd forum...

Bet this is your favorite song:

Anyway, my bad... I was just talkin sh*t.

My background is computer science, in school... run time of algorithms and such, in the real world... not so much...

I enjoyed the talk even though I was loaded, I believe I gave the disclaimer as such.

Unfortunately I don't get to use advanced math that much (or at all really) in what I do, so I decided to start learning the math behind quantum mechanics (thanks to CelticBomber I actually decided to buy a book)... as It has become a hobby to study it.

As you know, there are requirements to this... so as a result, I have to brush up on my math after 20 years since I graduated, so yes, I've been rambling about it a lot because I've been thinking about it a lot more now that I've been actively hitting the books.

The insecurities jab was just that...just a talk sh*t jab... and I got what I wanted, a few jabs back!

Well, here you go on your latest quiz question:

y = mx + b => 2 = (-4/5)(1) + b

b = 2 + 4/5 = 10/5 + 4/5 = 14/5

Seriously though, I did enjoy your quiz the other night, I could have declined the rabbit hole you started going down, but I chose to play. It was good for my own knowledge, and I did spend a good portion of the day on lower level stuff thanks to you, and I look forward to next time.

Oh... I'll probably still get f*cked up and ramble though, think we're all guilty of that...

for f(x) = x

f`(x) = 1

Intgral of x is (x^2)/2 + C

derivative is the tangent line or slope which measures the change in something vs something else... like d/dx or dy/dx, or dx/dt, or stuff like dy/dx = dy/du * du/dx, or the little squiggly ds for partials working on multivariable functions (yes, I've been reviewing my calc too)...

Things I've reviewed so far in linear algebra in my 20 year stint is matrix row reduction, determining whether a system of equations is linearly independent (no free variables), etc...

Limited time has been put in to matrix operations so far other than multiplication, and the rules and such. Briefly read about inversion, determinants, and ... skipped a bunch of stuff and jumped to Eigenvalues/vectors/spaces (which is pretty much where I'm at now).

Most of it has been pretty quick review... not going to torture myself with this hobby as I have no desire to one day be physics professor or anything, as I said, it's just a hobby. I just want to learn the math behind quantum mechanics for my own sake.

Assignments I did in college... if I remember right was to approximate the integration of e^-x to some place and I used Gaussian quadrature to do it... I'm name dropping here... as I no longer remember any details of Gaussian quadrature. Another was to implement a Fast Fourier Transform algorithm... I remember the gist of how it worked... mapping to the complex plane and back and such... though I don't remember the exact details. The point is, if I wanted to, I could go back and I could refresh my head on these things I've already done before, and I would understand them, though I may not be able to explain everything when quizzed.

Admittedly I'm rusty and can't recall textbook definitions of things off the top of my head when put on the spot (but I could still envision a line from 0, 0 going to a point with a little arrow after it) after a night of drinking and getting stoned as you put it... but I do know a thing or two about a thing or two.

Hopefully that's enough to satisfy your desire to determine whether I've actually been through the ringer or not...

ΔxΔp≥h4π Δ x Δ p ≥ h 4 π

Is it always true?

Seriously, a lot of what I talked about came from the brains of such beings (I've watched discussions Sean Carrol, lectures by Brian Green, a couple lectures from this dude at MIT that I don't remember his name). Admittedly I regurgitated a lot of of what many people who have put in far more time into the thought than I have and gave very convincing arguments... but it doesn't mean I haven't read or studied about it or that I can't comprehend what's being said. It doesn't mean that If they say something I'm not comfortable with, that I can't go research it on my own.

I mean, by that logic, nobody should ever study high level concepts unless they're in a position to constantly keep up with their fundamentals to a level of where they can recall definition from something they haven't seen since jr. high school. I mean, you gain a vocabulary of "big words" by reading about topics... and when you read about topics you see the math.

By that logic we shouldn't be able to study anything that oscillates if we don't have all trig identities and properties memorized.

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says (change in x)(change in momentum) >= (hbar)/2

h4(pi) = 2(hbar) so you're asking if...

(change in x)(change in momentum) >= 2hbar (change in x)(change in momentum) >= 2hbar

Intuitively I would say no... (admittedly it's a guess).

I'll leave it to the resident fundamental expert to properly explain it and show why it's true or false.

They get pulled over. Heisenberg is driving and the cop asks him, "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"No, but I know exactly where I am," Heisenberg replies.

The cop says, "You were doing 55 in a 35." Heisenberg throws up his hands and shouts, "Great! Now I'm lost!"

Finding this suspicious, the cop orders him to pop open the trunk. He checks it out and says, "Do you know you have a dead cat back here?"

"We do now, a$$hole!" shouts Schrodinger.

The cop moves to arrest them. Ohm resists.

This is the VHerf forum!

Quit hijacking the thread you fucques!

Start a nerd forum and stroke yourselves all the live long day...