Search results

How would you do such questions? Because usually, the width of your partitions is the same, so you can factor that out, and all you're usually left with is a summation which can be easily figured out using standard arithmetic progression formulas, or formulas of summing the first n squares...

Yeah, I'll have another look at that soon. Meanwhile, I've got a calculus q for a change: \\\text{Consider the partition }\mathcal{P}_{n}\text{ of [1,2], given by }\mathcal{P}_{n} = \{q^{0},q^{1},q^{2},...,q^{n},\}\text{ where } q^{n} = 2 \text{. Notice that (i) the divisions are not of equal...

Thanks! Maybe internet's too slow at uni. It took a while to download and then the LaTex appeared slowly . Also, is this a valid way to do this question: Prove the associative law: if AB and BC exist, the A(BC) = (AB)C for matrices

What's the easiest way to convert the following equations of planes: \\\frac{x-1}{3}=\frac{z+1}{6},y = 4 x = 4y into parametric and point normal forms? EDIT: for some reason, I can't see my LaTex code. Can you guys see it?

Thanks. Never thought of proving parallelism by proving they have a common normal vector! It would indeed be quicker to do this when figuring out values of the lambdas isn't so easy! Any ideas on (b)?

Yeah, I guess I could just say lambda1 = 2, lambda2 =1, but would both suffice by themselves?

Is this right?

Thanks, any ideas on b)?

Thanks will keep that in mind

Thanks alright then.

That's alright :) and thanks. I guess the main trick is knowing where to get your determinant from in this question. Btw, do you still have your working for that particular question (proving all those properties of matrices)? Just wanna compare my working to yours...

Do you have any textbook/resources in mind for vectors and matrices? And how would you do this?

Yeah, that makes sense too. Just a question, how do you go about studying all these topics? Do you have a textbook you prefer, or is it more like you go online to clarify concepts? Or is it a website you go to?

Yeah, never heard that before haha. But thanks, it makes sense. And just for greater conceptual understanding, is there another way to prove it? Any hints? If I knew about the Kronecker delta, I'd be able to solve so many problems more quickly omg

I think that's true only for some subs (like MATH subjects), but not for others like FINS1613 where attendance and tutorial participation is actually part of your final mark...So yeah, I guess really depends on what subjects you skip :P

Right thanks, I'll have to clarify this with my lecturer lol. Anyway, for (4), here's my working, if this is right? Don't get how to do (3) tho...Can you still do it with this notation and how would you generalise that to A of any size and the square matrix I of any size? Just for reference...

Wow this contradicts with the UNSW notes, which calls this the left distributive law, and the other one the Right distributive law???

Wait, I thought this was left distributivity lol

Not at my school, but my friend's. Apparently, there was this anonymous guy called "the poo man", and he used to graffiti (with his shit) on the toilet walls, with messages like "Haha I'm the poo man, you'll never catch me". There was also an announcement during the following school assembly but...

Do you mean "[AC]ij + [BC]ij, which is [AC + BC]ij" or am I just hallucinating?