may be worst, but there is room for imagination - mind you, looking back and re-writing history is pure when you have literary license.
fffFFFUUU, i wanna be Uzique when i grow up . . .
fffFFFUUU, i wanna be Uzique when i grow up . . .
err it's not a stepping stone is it... it's a theoretical framework. 'stepping stones' i'd say is the analytical toolkit and interpretative skills. being able to read books in the first place and understand their ideas and thematics, essentially.androoz wrote:
essentially literary theory is considered the stepping stones of your degree.Uzique wrote:
angola is an example... as is mozambique... south africa... latin america... east timor... india... err pretty much anywhere with a colonial past. ive got to evaluate how the two disciplines dialogically critique one another in theoretical, abstract ways though. historical dialecticism and hegelian-marxian conceptions of 'progress' and all that LOVELY boring shit. i hate writing essays on literary theory, the worst part of this degree by a long mile.burnzz wrote:
Angola, amirite?
"New colonies aren't needed when Marxist countries co-exist and work with one another. The capitalist system fails when countries seek to enrich themselves from the work of another, but at this point there are enough Marxist countries to be self sustaining. With the new world order present in every climate and region now, Marxism will be viable as a world model for sustainable and progressive growth"
[fuck, i lost count . . .]
we (the world) need to work together specifically by using some of these already applied theories to help causes.
and yeah, burnz, rewriting and reconsidering history is the interesting part. writing about it isnt. this argument is woven around a bunch of boring arguments: marxism is considered eurocentric and is thus synonymous to postcolonialists as imperialist and acting within the greater meta-narrative of hegelian progress and teleological history; postcolonialism is considered an abstractedly removed development of poststructuralism which is, in itself, a western-occidental framework imagined in bourgeosie metropolitan universities by white academics with no concrete or actual connection or empathy with the colonized and their post/neo-era struggles to rebuild and reassert identity...
KILL ME
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
heh, i shamelessly stole this from blade. you see Uzique? what this forum needs, is an enema. vote the pustle outta here, do the right thang.
I don't want to take the honor away from you.Uzique wrote:
KILL ME
^ see what i meen?
* You may post now
* You may post now
WAIT this is the homework help thread not EE Chat
Bad mod...but back on track
Bad mod...but back on track
I think so, assuming you use the proper initial values for x=1.4Bevo wrote:
following this now, praying it clears stuff upnukchebi0 wrote:
The equation a*dx=v*dv is all that you need. A is a function of x, so it integrates cleanly, as does v*dv. This link should clarify and guide your solution to the question.
thanks
ed: would i still eval from 2.8 to 1.4?
Writing anything too deeply engaged in theory is an exercise in frustration.Uzique wrote:
angola is an example... as is mozambique... south africa... latin america... east timor... india... err pretty much anywhere with a colonial past. ive got to evaluate how the two disciplines dialogically critique one another in theoretical, abstract ways though. historical dialecticism and hegelian-marxian conceptions of 'progress' and all that LOVELY boring shit. i hate writing essays on literary theory, the worst part of this degree by a long mile.burnzz wrote:
Angola, amirite?
"New colonies aren't needed when Marxist countries co-exist and work with one another. The capitalist system fails when countries seek to enrich themselves from the work of another, but at this point there are enough Marxist countries to be self sustaining. With the new world order present in every climate and region now, Marxism will be viable as a world model for sustainable and progressive growth"
[fuck, i lost count . . .]
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-03 21:13:32)
didnt worknukchebi0 wrote:
I think so, assuming you use the proper initial values for x=1.4Bevo wrote:
following this now, praying it clears stuff upnukchebi0 wrote:
The equation a*dx=v*dv is all that you need. A is a function of x, so it integrates cleanly, as does v*dv. This link should clarify and guide your solution to the question.
thanks
ed: would i still eval from 2.8 to 1.4?
i got v = ((10/9)x3 - (14/15)x)1/2
eval @ 2.8m = 4.6666
eval @ 1.4m = 1.32
difference = 3.3466, + 4.4 = 7.7466
no go.
like licking windows on a London commuter, amirite?nukchebi0 wrote:
Writing anything too deeply engaged in theory is an exercise in frustration.
You should get:
adx=vdv
[(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4=[v2/2]v4.4
=v2/2-17.6/2
2([(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4+8.8)=v2
Take the square root of that, and do you get the same answer?
adx=vdv
[(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4=[v2/2]v4.4
=v2/2-17.6/2
2([(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4+8.8)=v2
Take the square root of that, and do you get the same answer?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-03 21:25:38)
I can't follow your maths
2([(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4+8.8)=v2
looks like the equation I posted, except you have 8.8 instead of 4.4
2([(5/9)x3-(7/15)x]2.81.4+8.8)=v2
looks like the equation I posted, except you have 8.8 instead of 4.4
Last edited by Bevo (2010-03-03 21:29:40)
You didn't include the initial velocity value in the square root, because you didn't take the integral of v*dv properly. The third line, where it is =v2... held the other side constant, so like
yx-1)+1
=x
yx-1)+1
=x
dude i dont even know what the hell you're on about, im so fucking lost now
Okay, so the integral of adx is on the interval [1.4, 2.8] and thus equals 10.0178.
Therefore, you have 10.0178=v2/2-8.8
Therefore, 18.8178=v2
Therefore, v=sqrt(18.8178)=4.33
Therefore final velocity is 4.33 + 4.4 = 8.74
If that doesn't work, I have no idea what is the proper method to solve this problem.
Therefore, you have 10.0178=v2/2-8.8
Therefore, 18.8178=v2
Therefore, v=sqrt(18.8178)=4.33
Therefore final velocity is 4.33 + 4.4 = 8.74
If that doesn't work, I have no idea what is the proper method to solve this problem.
nah thats not right eithernukchebi0 wrote:
Okay, so the integral of adx is on the interval [1.4, 2.8] and thus equals 10.0178.
Therefore, you have 10.0178=v2/2-8.8
Therefore, 18.8178=v2
Therefore, v=sqrt(18.8178)=4.33
Therefore final velocity is 4.33 + 4.4 = 8.74
If that doesn't work, I have no idea what is the proper method to solve this problem.
i've given up hope of getting credit, thanks for all the help
Wait, hold on. I made a moronic math error. That should be sqrt(37.6356), not sqrt(18.8178). Try solving using that instead.
It should be 6.1347+4.4=10.5348
It should be 6.1347+4.4=10.5348
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-03 22:11:50)
nahnukchebi0 wrote:
Wait, hold on. I made a moronic math error. That should be sqrt(37.6356), not sqrt(18.8178). Try solving using that instead.
It should be 6.1347+4.4=10.5348
lol, s'ok dude, the answer is only worth a few points now anyway
yeah you lose .7 points or something with each guess, 7 total guesses for manually entered answersnukchebi0 wrote:
Lol, does the point value decrease the more times you guess?
im at 6 guesses.. no point really.
Oh, haha, they penalize guessing?
With that said, I'd really like to know the answer.
Edit: Lel at deleted post.
With that said, I'd really like to know the answer.
Edit: Lel at deleted post.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-03-03 22:22:46)
i'll post it tomorrownukchebi0 wrote:
Oh, haha, they penalize guessing?
With that said, I'd really like to know the answer.
Looking forward to it.
Integrate force for the change in potential energy, set it equal to the KE at 2.8m :\nukchebi0 wrote:
Looking forward to it.
fail.
yay got a 1:1 in my last theory essay; that's encouraging for the one i was battling with last night
q: 'is there truth in art? discuss'
q: 'is there truth in art? discuss'
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
if you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know only basic physics and mathematics deals with 'plugging numbers into formulae'Uzique wrote:
yeah go back to your this-is-right, this-is-wrong textbook, faggot
heaven forbid should you apply your brain to something else other than plugging numbers into pre-defined formulas and theorems
gl; hf with regurgitating words from textbook to paper
yo where do they teach english literature in textbooks
sucks to be canadian
my point was that maths/sciences operate on right/wrong - black n white axis. you know it, or you dont. you get high marks and ace a test, or you fail. subjects that deal in the grey demand an entirely different skillset. by the way i was a straight-A* student in maths and sciences and could have taken them at degree-level too, so you don't have to lecture me on 'knowing what you're talking about' ... 'only the basics'... you misinterpreted the point i was making.
gl;hf being a cunt
sucks to be canadian
my point was that maths/sciences operate on right/wrong - black n white axis. you know it, or you dont. you get high marks and ace a test, or you fail. subjects that deal in the grey demand an entirely different skillset. by the way i was a straight-A* student in maths and sciences and could have taken them at degree-level too, so you don't have to lecture me on 'knowing what you're talking about' ... 'only the basics'... you misinterpreted the point i was making.
gl;hf being a cunt
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/