Users who are viewing this thread
Thanks! Russian isn't my native language, and I've never actually studied it either, so I was trying to deduce stuff as much as I could; and I wouldn't've ever known that ГОСТ could mean anything except "guest"...CaptainAndrew said:
(And lo! and behold, turns out I'm wrong, and that "guest" in Russian isn't "гост", but "гость"... herp derp.)I've never heard of synthetic division or Ruffini's rule, and I'd recommend using the Horner scheme... but that seems to be a different name for the same thing, at least in this regard.crodio said:Thanks!
synthetic division, that's a new name for ruffini's rule
It's weird that they never taught me that rational zeros test in school, seems pretty useful.
Now if only integral calculus was as simple...
Horner's rule+Newtons method only approximates the roots, IIRC. You could save some time if you just need to get the roots, but if you need to show that they are indeed roots, you need something deductive.
Also, you have to pretty much guess with Horner, so if it's a number that's not on a scale from -2 to 2, you'll be spending a heck of a long time on it.
havoc
Marquis
I has question.
I have a square I want to know how to work out how big that square needs to be to fit my smaller squares. Say I have 700 small squares and each one is 300x300, how do I work out how big the big square needs to be in order to fit all the small squares?
It's probably painfully simple, but I has the mind block.
I have a square I want to know how to work out how big that square needs to be to fit my smaller squares. Say I have 700 small squares and each one is 300x300, how do I work out how big the big square needs to be in order to fit all the small squares?
It's probably painfully simple, but I has the mind block.
Sqrt(300² x 700)
But, that square would have the same surface as the sum of the 700 little squares, but would not fit all the squares if they keep their square shape.
If you want to really fit the squares in you should add length to the side of the square until "Sqrt(300² x 700)+x" is divisible by 300 ( i think)
If you want to really fit the squares in you should add length to the side of the square until "Sqrt(300² x 700)+x" is divisible by 300 ( i think)
Yeah, you're right.
I'm not 100% sure what you need, but a few seconds of thought gives me this:
(ceil(sqrt(700))*300)^2. This will get you the area of the square that fits all of your squares without cutting any square. There will be excess space.
(ceil(sqrt(700))*300)^2. This will get you the area of the square that fits all of your squares without cutting any square. There will be excess space.
Squares are stupid, let's talk about triangles.
Yeah, discussing circles sucks. You just go round and round and never get to the point.
Vraelomon said:
SwadianJedi said:
Buzzkill time: A circle is the set of all points the same distance from a specific point on a 2D Cartesian plane. A circle is not pointless and you're always at a point.
I have a quandary.
Today, do I wear Chanel #5, or Paco Raban BlackXS?
Today, do I wear Chanel #5, or Paco Raban BlackXS?
Black XS it is, then!
I don't know what those are, but if it's not a solid desaturated color you are doing it wrong.Pharaoh X Llandy said:
