Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 19 of 19

Math Help - Help with limit

  1. #16
    TD!
    TD! is offline
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Brussels, Belgium
    Posts
    405
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    Did I do this right?
    This is fine. If you wonder whether you took 'enough' terms in the Taylor-expansion, take one more and see if you get the same answer.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #17
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    9,845
    Thanks
    320
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    Not to offend you but I realized that in my engineering class. The professor just manipulates that stuff and differencials in an way he wants to.

    It some ways I agree with that approach. I think I am the only mathemation in my differencial equations class. I have made some remarks about the professors' solution after class, he told me he would be concered with it if he was in a roomful of mathemations but engineers do not need to know that stuff. In fact, If I want to for example, differencial equations on a serious level I would first learn how to solve them informally and incorrectly. Then I would learn the theory, so that I not have to memorize techniques to how to solve them, that stuff I would already know and only be concerned with about the theory.
    Actually I agree with you completely. This is one of the reasons why I was insisting on taking Math classes when I was working on my Physics PhD. (Which I haven't gotten yet, so I'll probably be ticking off a whole new set of professors in the future.) Especially in fields like statistical mechanics. They were doing approximations that even _I_ thought were suspect. (Fermion distribution functions especially.) Of course, in stat mech if you don't know how to solve an equation, the rule of thumb is to approximate it. (Yes, TPH, even more so than in Classical Mechanics! )

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #18
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
    Actually I agree with you completely. This is one of the reasons why I was insisting on taking Math classes when I was working on my Physics PhD. (Which I haven't gotten yet, so I'll probably be ticking off a whole new set of professors in the future.) Especially in fields like statistical mechanics. They were doing approximations that even _I_ thought were suspect. (Fermion distribution functions especially.) Of course, in stat mech if you don't know how to solve an equation, the rule of thumb is to approximate it. (Yes, TPH, even more so than in Classical Mechanics! )
    I know this is getting of topic...
    But that is the ugly side of physics.

    I never, never, ever been able to understand those derivations in physics. For example, my professor was showing why a hanging cable is a caternary. He set up a differencial equation and shown that hyperbolic functions solve it, good that I understand. But how did he get that equation! He just divided the section into a very small piece. And said, well it is almost like a line... some more crazy statement... and wonderful we have an equation. However, if you mimick his approach say with a parabola instead of a line, because you can say that curve is almost a parabola... the same crazy manipulations... and we have an equation... which is different!! So my problem is, how do you understand these derivations? There is no way. Which is why I consider these laws discovered by luck rather then by derivation.

    It seems the rule in physics is: that it is important that it works rather than how it was derived.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #19
    Forum Admin topsquark's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2006
    From
    Wellsville, NY
    Posts
    9,845
    Thanks
    320
    Awards
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker View Post
    I know this is getting of topic...
    But that is the ugly side of physics.

    I never, never, ever been able to understand those derivations in physics. For example, my professor was showing why a hanging cable is a caternary. He set up a differencial equation and shown that hyperbolic functions solve it, good that I understand. But how did he get that equation! He just divided the section into a very small piece. And said, well it is almost like a line... some more crazy statement... and wonderful we have an equation. However, if you mimick his approach say with a parabola instead of a line, because you can say that curve is almost a parabola... the same crazy manipulations... and we have an equation... which is different!! So my problem is, how do you understand these derivations? There is no way. Which is why I consider these laws discovered by luck rather then by derivation.

    It seems the rule in physics is: that it is important that it works rather than how it was derived.
    I know what you mean about the approximations. Actually, in Intro Physics there is the concept of a (2-D) radius of curvature, which essentially models a curve as a series of arcs of a circle as opposed to a series of line segments. (I don't know how the concept is taken into 3-D, but there is a definition somewhere. I ran across it in my graduate Electrodynamics class.) One would hope that the caternary would at least also solve your "parabolic approximation" equation being that the parabola approximation would be a second order level approximation.

    But in general, yes, if you use a different approximation you tend to get a different equation. The clearest example I can think of to this is a lecture I attended at Purdue U. where one of the Nuclear Field Theorists presented a talk that mentioned that he and his team had discovered a (theoretical) stable energy state lying at a lower level than the previously determined ground state for nuclear particles. For some 20 - 30 years Physicists had used an approximate solution for the ground state of nuclear matter and now they found out it wasn't really the ground state. (I don't think it was an earth-shattering development since I haven't heard anything about it since. But it's the principle of the matter that counts.) Some approximations seem to work better than others and as far as I know it's a crap shoot to decide which will be the best one to model nature on.

    -Dan
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 26th 2010, 10:59 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 8th 2010, 11:29 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 5th 2010, 03:33 AM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: November 15th 2009, 04:18 PM
  5. Limit, Limit Superior, and Limit Inferior of a function
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: September 3rd 2009, 05:05 PM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum