Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Ever wondered why ?

Ever wondered why ?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
comquestion
53 Posts 26 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • G georani

    First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

    A Offline
    A Offline
    Alexander DiMauro
    wrote on last edited by
    #38

    georani wrote:

    First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

    Exactly. I learned it without this step. They called it the 'FOIL' method. First Outer Inner Last. (a+b)(a+b) First: a*a Outer: a*b Inner: b*a Last: b*b a^2 + 2ab + b^2

    The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.

    G L 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • G georani

      First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

      J Offline
      J Offline
      Jecc
      wrote on last edited by
      #39

      georani wrote:

      First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

      Because it's the law! ...the distributive law. With maybe a little commutative on the side.

      G 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • A Alexander DiMauro

        georani wrote:

        First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

        Exactly. I learned it without this step. They called it the 'FOIL' method. First Outer Inner Last. (a+b)(a+b) First: a*a Outer: a*b Inner: b*a Last: b*b a^2 + 2ab + b^2

        The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.

        G Offline
        G Offline
        georani
        wrote on last edited by
        #40

        You have not explained it at all. You only showed rules you learnt in school. I think you should show the WHY of these rules.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • J jsc42

          With geometry, you can easily prove that Sqrt(2) = 2.

                  |            (assume these lines are 1 unit high and 1 unit along)
                  |
                  |
          

          ____________|

          The distance between the open ends is sqrt(2) [From Pythagoras's theorem: sqrt(1^2 + 1^2)] 1st approximation of the diagonal:

             \_\_\_\_
             |    |  Length of diagonal = verticals (1/2 + 1/2) + horizontals (1/2 + 1/2)
          

          ______| | = 2
          | |
          |___________|

          2nd approximation of the diagonal:

                \_\_
             \_\_|  |  Length of diagonal = verticals (4 \* 1/4) + horizontals (4 \* 1/4)
          \_\_|     |                     = 2
          

          __| |
          |___________|

          3rd approximation of the diagonal:

               \_,-|  Length of diagonal = verticals (8 \* 1/8) + horizontals (8 \* 1/8)
           \_,-'   |                     = 2
          

          _,-' | (Assume ' represents a small vertical line)
          '___________|

          (At this stage, I have reached beyond the capability of ASCII art) No matter how many times you do the better approximations of the diagonal, even until the verticals and horizontals are smaller than an atom, the total horizontal distance = 1 and the total vertical distance is also 1, so the diagonal is 2. Therefore, using geometry we have proved that (using Pythagoras's theorem) Sqrt(2) = 2.

          K Offline
          K Offline
          krumia
          wrote on last edited by
          #41

          :doh: What you're saying is true, for EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY, where you can have the basic assumptions about parallel lines and all that. But what I'm saying is, there are other types of geometry versions other than euclidean geometry (i.e. the normal geometry we know). Would you believe it if I say that the sum of angles inside a triangle is not 2*pi? In euclidean geometry that sum is 2*pi, but that's not always true with other geometries.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J Jecc

            georani wrote:

            First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

            Because it's the law! ...the distributive law. With maybe a little commutative on the side.

            G Offline
            G Offline
            georani
            wrote on last edited by
            #42

            Yes, this is the law. The question is: WHY? Could you show the WHY of this law in a short explanation?

            J L 2 Replies Last reply
            0
            • G georani

              Yes, this is the law. The question is: WHY? Could you show the WHY of this law in a short explanation?

              J Offline
              J Offline
              Jecc
              wrote on last edited by
              #43

              I could, but these guys[^] have already done it for me.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • L Lost User

                (a+b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab[^] ?

                W Offline
                W Offline
                wizardzz
                wrote on last edited by
                #44

                Holy Birkenstocks :omg:

                "I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K krumia

                  There is a problem with that though. This proof is based on geometry. And geometry, as other branches of maths, are built upon basic postulates. Postulates are just assumptions, that could go wrong. Did you know that there is a strange kind of geometry, in which some of the basic postulates of common (Euclidean) geometry is left out. see this.[^] Actually, I don't know if you can prove this thing in those other geometry or not. :)

                  A Offline
                  A Offline
                  Andy Brummer
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #45

                  The more detailed representation of that kind of geometric multiplication is the Exterior Algebra[^]. Applying the same concept to curved spaces leads to differential forms[^] and a multidimensional form of the fundamental theorem of calculus[^].

                  Curvature of the Mind now with 3D

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • J jsc42

                    With geometry, you can easily prove that Sqrt(2) = 2.

                            |            (assume these lines are 1 unit high and 1 unit along)
                            |
                            |
                    

                    ____________|

                    The distance between the open ends is sqrt(2) [From Pythagoras's theorem: sqrt(1^2 + 1^2)] 1st approximation of the diagonal:

                       \_\_\_\_
                       |    |  Length of diagonal = verticals (1/2 + 1/2) + horizontals (1/2 + 1/2)
                    

                    ______| | = 2
                    | |
                    |___________|

                    2nd approximation of the diagonal:

                          \_\_
                       \_\_|  |  Length of diagonal = verticals (4 \* 1/4) + horizontals (4 \* 1/4)
                    \_\_|     |                     = 2
                    

                    __| |
                    |___________|

                    3rd approximation of the diagonal:

                         \_,-|  Length of diagonal = verticals (8 \* 1/8) + horizontals (8 \* 1/8)
                     \_,-'   |                     = 2
                    

                    _,-' | (Assume ' represents a small vertical line)
                    '___________|

                    (At this stage, I have reached beyond the capability of ASCII art) No matter how many times you do the better approximations of the diagonal, even until the verticals and horizontals are smaller than an atom, the total horizontal distance = 1 and the total vertical distance is also 1, so the diagonal is 2. Therefore, using geometry we have proved that (using Pythagoras's theorem) Sqrt(2) = 2.

                    A Offline
                    A Offline
                    Andy Brummer
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #46

                    That is true in the taxi cab metric[^]. I have a little demo page[^] that generates voronoi diagrams in both Euclidean, Taxicab and hyperbolic geometries.

                    Curvature of the Mind now with 3D

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • K krumia

                      There is a problem with that though. This proof is based on geometry. And geometry, as other branches of maths, are built upon basic postulates. Postulates are just assumptions, that could go wrong. Did you know that there is a strange kind of geometry, in which some of the basic postulates of common (Euclidean) geometry is left out. see this.[^] Actually, I don't know if you can prove this thing in those other geometry or not. :)

                      A Offline
                      A Offline
                      Andy Brummer
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #47

                      Also if you are interested in some models of hyperbolic geometry complex dynamics [^] is a great site for that.

                      Curvature of the Mind now with 3D

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • L Lost User

                        (a+b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab[^] ?

                        F Offline
                        F Offline
                        ForestHymn
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #48

                        In all my years of math I was never shown this. Awesome.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • A Alexander DiMauro

                          georani wrote:

                          First you should explain why: (a+b)(a+b) = a(a+b) + b(a+b)

                          Exactly. I learned it without this step. They called it the 'FOIL' method. First Outer Inner Last. (a+b)(a+b) First: a*a Outer: a*b Inner: b*a Last: b*b a^2 + 2ab + b^2

                          The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke! My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.

                          L Offline
                          L Offline
                          lewax00
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #49

                          That's just a convenient way to do what's written there in your head. It's exactly the same.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • G georani

                            Yes, this is the law. The question is: WHY? Could you show the WHY of this law in a short explanation?

                            L Offline
                            L Offline
                            lewax00
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #50

                            Because multiplication is defined in such a way that that is true. Why does 1=1? Why does 1+1=2? You can only break down the math so far, eventually there is no reason other than the definition. See Godel's Incompleteness Theorems[^].

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • L Lost User

                              (a+b)2 = a2 + b2 + 2ab[^] ?

                              D Offline
                              D Offline
                              Dan Neely
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #51

                              That should be obvious from the moment you learn how to multiply a 2 digit number by itself.

                              Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason? Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful? --Zachris Topelius Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies. -- Sarah Hoyt

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • A AspDotNetDev

                                I wonder if there's a simple visual demonstration of why (for right triangles): a2 + b2 = c2

                                Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

                                Y Offline
                                Y Offline
                                yiangos
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #52

                                There are many visual proofs to Pythagoras' theorem. For instance: clicky for vimeo video[^] Mind you, simply having the last frame of the video is probably enough for the visual proof. Also, there is a whole wikipedia article on the subject of the Pythagoras' Theorem, and it includes some visual proofs, though I personally find the one in the video to be the most elegant.

                                Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων! (Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)

                                A 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • Y yiangos

                                  There are many visual proofs to Pythagoras' theorem. For instance: clicky for vimeo video[^] Mind you, simply having the last frame of the video is probably enough for the visual proof. Also, there is a whole wikipedia article on the subject of the Pythagoras' Theorem, and it includes some visual proofs, though I personally find the one in the video to be the most elegant.

                                  Φευ! Εδόμεθα υπό ρηννοσχήμων λύκων! (Alas! We're devoured by lamb-guised wolves!)

                                  A Offline
                                  A Offline
                                  AspDotNetDev
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #53

                                  I like it. :thumbsup:

                                  Thou mewling ill-breeding pignut!

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  0
                                  Reply
                                  • Reply as topic
                                  Log in to reply
                                  • Oldest to Newest
                                  • Newest to Oldest
                                  • Most Votes


                                  • Login

                                  • Don't have an account? Register

                                  • Login or register to search.
                                  • First post
                                    Last post
                                  0
                                  • Categories
                                  • Recent
                                  • Tags
                                  • Popular
                                  • World
                                  • Users
                                  • Groups