Uh, 90...that's not a particularly hard one (I know someone's thinking it, thats what she said)

 

So we still have the probablility Q left?

 

hey! you got it! haha i guess that wasnt hard enough... ill think of somthing Sooner or later

 

Mathletes... ready... set.... GO!

 

e=mc^2 anyone???

 

E and M are your variables.

Energy equals mass time the speed of light squared.

 

Alright, prove e=mc^2 haha

 

OK, math heads, explain why, when dividing 6 by 1/3, the answer is 18. Don't show me the math - explain it as you would to a 4th grader. Remember, it has to make sense to a kid. No math, just an explanation.
I know why - I just want see how good you math heads are with explanations. Guess what I do Monday - Friday.

 

its like a double negitive....you are divding by a division...this is the same as multiplying.....I know its not very clear...but I got the point.

 

Yep. no one has answered my finite question yet :P

 

ok, if I'm counting right there's 14 ways for two people to sit adjacently in six desks in 2 rows, forwards and backwards. Out of 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720 possible arrangements, 14/720 ~ .01944 so 1.9 %

oops, I see that there was only one row,

That should be 10 ways of arranging the two, still 720 possible seating combinations, so 1 in 72?

I counter from a friend's homework, don't nobody feel silly bein scared've this one, its senior calculus in a quantum mechanics problem.


ahem.

Use a taylor polynomial to show that the Rayleigh-Jeans equation (intensity=2(pi)ckT/(wavelength)^4) {where c is the speed pf light, k is boltzman's constant, and T is the absolute temperature in kelvin}, gives approximately the same values as Planck's law (intensity= (2(pi)c^2)/(wavelength)^5 x h/(e^(hc/[(wavelength)kT])-1) {where h is planck's constant} for large wavelengths.



These two formulas can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh-Jeans_law

 

Hint for the finite. Calculate the probability for the couple to physically sit beside each other then substract from 1.

Remember (1)(2)(3)(M)(F)(4) is not the same as (1)(2)(3)(F)(M)(4)

 

oh, non-adjacent. whoopsie. 71/72 or 98.6% ?

 

This one still haunts my dreams, 10 years after first studying it back in college:

 

I was staring at some incomprehensible equations today, and thought of you guys. I can't begin to type them here, but you can "look inside" my textbook on amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Supersy...3849758&sr=8-6

 

man, i haven't done this forever... it is nice to know that all i need is a quick refresher to remember these

edit: oh geez!! I didn't see the second page when i posted that ^^^

 

theres a reason why im glad im not in school anymore...and i think i just remembered why...