The Official Math/Physics/Whatever Homework questions thread

[Wyman]

Originally Posted by DeucesAx

yeah, that's what I meant. So there is no tangent line then? I mean I can't even evaluate the limit, right?

There is a tangent line; it's just vertical. It's of the form x=a. [So here, it's x=e.]

See the graph at:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x*ln%28x%29%2Be^y-xy%3De

Originally Posted by acehole60

When you guys talk about "Rudin" is it "Principles of Mathematical Analysis" (1976)?

That is "Baby Rudin."

"Rudin" is titled "Real and Complex Analysis."

Mariogs is going thru baby Rudin atm, and "Rudin" is a hardcore intro graduate level analysis text.

Originally Posted by acehole60

My plan is to revisit Real Analysis and then Measure Theory. Seems like Rudin is your go-to guy, so I might try him (and will probably also ask questions in this thread). Are there any recommendations for a measure theory book?

Rudin "Real and Complex Analysis"
and
Folland "Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and their Applications"

I think are two of the major ones being used in graduate courses in the big research schools. I learned from Folland and found it fine, but with many annoying typos. I always carried my copy of Rudin as a supplement.

There are a number of other books suggested here: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/11...re-theory-book

But I can't comment further on any of them.

[acehole60]

Originally Posted by Wyman

"Rudin" is titled "Real and Complex Analysis."

Mariogs is going thru baby Rudin atm, and "Rudin" is a hardcore intro graduate level analysis text.



Rudin "Real and Complex Analysis"
and
Folland "Real Analysis: Modern Techniques and their Applications"

I think are two of the major ones being used in graduate courses in the big research schools. I learned from Folland and found it fine, but with many annoying typos. I always carried my copy of Rudin as a supplement.

There are a number of other books suggested here: http://mathoverflow.net/questions/11...re-theory-book

But I can't comment further on any of them.

Thanks a lot. I have done a (undergraduate) course in real analysis before, but I probably need to refreshed it, so I guess I should start with baby Rudin? And then move on to Rudin or possibly straight to measure theory. There seems to be no particular consensus on a measure theory book, so I might just pick one from the list.

Thanks again! I will probably return with questions to exercises.

EDIT: Or do you think I could jump straight into Rudin?

[Wyman]

Measure theory is what a real analysis course (graduate) is all about. So Rudin and Folland contain all you'll ever want to know about it. Or in my case, way more than I could ever want to know...

[non-self-weighter]

We've just learned derivatives of inverse trig functions, and I'm working on a take home quiz. Don't worry, the professor says we can seek help from other people with take home quizzes. Really! Anyway, the structure of this question really confuses me. Could someone please clarify?

Find y'(x) if arcsin(xy) = 1 -y*x^2

The part that really confuses me is "arcsin(xy)". The question would make a lot more sense to me if it said "arcsin(y(x))", because then I can easily apply the chain rule:



Do I need to solve "arcsin(xy) = 1 -y*x^2" for y first or am I overthinking it? I really believe the question is not meant to be that complicated for us yet. I suspect that I should just be plugging in "1 -y*x^2" as g(x) in my above formula, but the question just doesn't make sense to me like that.

Thank you.

[Cueballmania]

Implicit differentiation.

[non-self-weighter]

Originally Posted by Cueballmania

Implicit differentiation.

Thanks for all your continued help, Cueballmania! I totally forgot about this tool! We just learned about this as well.

Again:

Find y'(x) if arcsin(xy) = 1 -y*x^2

Just for completeness, note that I'm using this chain rule:

This quotient rule:

And this product rule:

My final answer is pretty long, so I'm going to show all my steps. Here we go:















Wow. The answer is pretty long, which is still worrisome. Also, I still need to replace y in the derivative by solving the original equation for y:





I'll just leave it here for now. So far, so good?

[masque de Z]

You can also take the sine of both sides in defining equation meaning ;

xy=sin(1-y*x^2)

and then take the derivative of both sides and solve for y' which is a lot easier as it requires much simpler derivatives. You still end up with y' as function of x,y.

Ps: Dont forget a derivative symbol missing in your last expression y'=...

[non-self-weighter]

Wow! Thank you, masque de Z! That makes it much simpler. I need a lot more practice approaching these questions as simply as possible.

I don't see what you're referring to here though:

Originally Posted by masque de Z

Ps: Dont forget a derivative symbol missing in your last expression y'=...

[masque de Z]

Originally Posted by non-self-weighter

Wow! Thank you, masque de Z! That makes it much simpler. I need a lot more practice approaching these questions as simply as possible.

I don't see what you're referring to here though:

Its ok i thought that was the final result for y' but its ok you didnt write anything wrong. I thought something else that is now fine after looking back what you wrote.

[DeucesAx]

I also have a homework question. I am supposed to find the limit of x^ sin(x) as x approaches 0 from the right.

I know I have to write it as y = x^ sin (x) and then take the natural logarithm of both sides to get ln(y) = ln x^ sin (x) which should equal sin (x) * ln(x).
But when I apply l' hopitals rule I get stuck. Whatever I put in the numerator it just gets worse with no answer. I googled it, but only found solutions using taylor, we didn't do that yet.

[masque de Z]

Originally Posted by DeucesAx

I also have a homework question. I am supposed to find the limit of x^ sin(x) as x approaches 0 from the right.

I know I have to write it as y = x^ sin (x) and then take the natural logarithm of both sides to get ln(y) = ln x^ sin (x) which should equal sin (x) * ln(x).
But when I apply l' hopitals rule I get stuck. Whatever I put in the numerator it just gets worse with no answer. I googled it, but only found solutions using taylor, we didn't do that yet.

Rewrite sin(x)*Log(x) as sin(x)/(1/Log(x)) and apply L'Hopital rule there.

Then apply it one more time to the resulting expression because you will need the limit of x*(Log(x))^2 which of course you can write as (Log(x))^2/(1/x) and eventually you get x*Log(x) for which you can rewrite as Log(x)/(1/x) and apply L"Hopital again which finally will get you the answer.

Just keep trying never give up and victory is yours , lol. Remembers Churchill lol!

"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy"

Seemed appropriate here given that you had to keep using the method over and over again lol.

Probably some easier alternative may exist. The fact is to any experienced approximations guy the original expression is instantly x^x in the limit and you know this is 1 basically from the x(log x) thing that goes to 0 because |log x| doesnt go to infinity as fast as say x^(-1/2) or whatever like that power smaller than 1 making the absolute value of product say between x and x^1/2 both being 0 hence the exponential of 0 =1 for the original thing )


Try to find Sin(x)^(tan(x)) if you want to practice and convince yourself you can do such things anyway without help.



PS: You can even try the original as Log(x)/(1/Sin(x)) and same methods, probably easier Churchill boost free lol...(the log gets killed instantly and you know sin x goes like x etc)

[anguyen92]

Hello everyone, I don't know where to ask, and this thread seems like my best bet, but in about a week, I'm going to start learning an introduction financial course to accounting, and I'm trying to look for the best position to ready the mind so that when I start the class, I don't get behind the eight ball right away. So where do I begin for preparation?

Also, I might ask questions in the future about accounting if that is all right with you guys.

[DeucesAx]

The most important question you should ask is: should I make accounting my career? The answer is NO. Accounting sucks. Its ok while you are at college, once you get to a higher level and get to discuss it at a conceptual level. Once you are working it's so dry that you literally wanted to shot myself. I worked for pwc and thus with accountants from multiple companies. They were pretty much all miserable ppl. Sure you'll make good money and have all kinds of career oppurtunities, but you'll have your butt of in a job that sucks.

Don't do it. seriously.

[Wyman]

Originally Posted by DeucesAx

The most important question you should ask is: should I make accounting my career? The answer is NO. Accounting sucks. Its ok while you are at college, once you get to a higher level and get to discuss it at a conceptual level. Once you are working it's so dry that you literally wanted to shot myself. I worked for pwc and thus with accountants from multiple companies. They were pretty much all miserable ppl. Sure you'll make good money and have all kinds of career oppurtunities, but you'll have your butt of in a job that sucks.

Don't do it. seriously.

They were miserable because they worked at pwc and made 50-60k and worked 90-100 hrs a week. They were not miserable just because of accounting.

The big firms are soul crushing, but I have plenty of accountant friends that work at smaller places (e.g., hedge funds, big companies that hire in-house accountants, etc) who love life. Some of them did 3-4 years at a big firm before that, but most of them used that as an opportunity to sock away money, live in a big city, and bang a lot of accountant girls.

Sorry to disagree so wildly, but I don't think your advice is general at all.

[non-self-weighter]

Let me preface by saying, my background is in finance, and I love it. Also, the professor I am going to loosely quote was a finance professor, so take my post for what it's worth. I happen to agree with my professor's summary. He made these comments about the different concentrations in business administration during an intro finance course. The summary went something like this (I'll add my thoughts in parenthesis):

Accounting - Bean counters. Just all arithmetic. (There is some discretion, but it's so boring.)
Management - Total B.S. What you'll learn is just that you need to smile and keep employees happy.
Marketing - Total B.S. If you want to sell more product, you slightly reduce prices. (Of course there is price elasticity, etc. But the professor is correct, that so much of the crap they teach in Marketing is just a waste of time.)
Finance - This is where actual/difficult money making decisions are made. This is where you want to be if you like to be involved in meaningful investment decisions.

I've studied a lot of accounting in college, and even studied more of it for the first two CFA exams, and it's a real drag. I know a lot of accountants, and I only know one person that truly loves it, and he's a PhD, who readily admits and laughs about how boring accounting and accountants are. He has a good sense of humor. I don't think it's boring to him, but he knows it's boring for 99% of people.

Wyman is correct that there are definitely no shortage of accounting girls! I don't know why, but so many women gravitate towards accounting instead of finance or economics. Accountants are like secretaries for finance professionals imo. I'm coming off as so arrogant right now, but I don't care. I'm just trying to give you the straight dope. I think girls like accounting because it's still business, and they may have an aptitude for numbers, but they don't want to get involved in finance, which is significantly more difficult imho.

I wouldn't say accounting sucks. It's just boring, and there are so many rules to remember. It's easy if you can remember a bunch of the rules (and there are lots). It's straight-forward in general. I don't think it's fun at all. You just summarize a bunch of data so that other people can use it. You're not actually using it yourself (for decision making).

Accounting may be for you if:
You want a corporate job.
You like numbers.
You are able to derive a lot of simple/intuitive formulas.
You are able to memorize a lot of rules (various accounting practice exceptions).
You don't want to have a position where there is a lot of discretion (otherwise I'd say look more into finance). You just follow the accounting practices.
You don't want to be making investment decisions that may be closely tied to your income (otherwise I'd say look more into finance).
You want something more stable than a finance job. I'd say accounting jobs are relatively stable.

If you had more specific questions, I'm sure we could give you more detailed and better answers.