tsukikage: (misc - find x)
[personal profile] tsukikage
To math-y types:

If you're doing a u-substitution in an integral, just how un-Kosher is is to, as part of showing your work (and/or leaving yourself a paper trail), explicitly list dx in terms of du in preparation for "substituting" the du-containing equivalent to dx. For example, if I'm integrating sin(x)*cos(x) dx, and let u = sin(x) => du = cos(x) dx, is it then completely improper to continue with "=> dx = du / cos(x)", then substituting this for dx as u*cos(x) (du / cos(x)) = u du? I had my professor check that I'm showing enough work on my calc quiz due tomorrow, and he was adamant that I shouldn't have all u terms and x terms on separate sides at all times, and obviously he grades my quizzes and tests so I'll do what he says, but I could have sworn that saying dx = du / cos(x) was totally acceptable in either Math 1471H or 1271 (it all blurs together), at least in intermediate steps just to help yourself along.

Mmmm, really hoping I can finish my quiz before it's time to get up tomorrow. I seriously don't look forward to the idea of pulling two nighters in a row, and even less the idea of taking a "nap" and not having enought time to finish my quiz.

ETA: "They were a little slower to invoke the Prime Directive, and a little quicker to pull their phasers. Of course, the whole lot of them would have been booted out of Starfleet today." So very true. I like that they're actually addressing the complete difference in mood between TOS and subsequent Trek series.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

tsukikage: (Default)
tsukikage

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
910 1112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 30th, 2026 05:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios