The proof of mass vector.
in [Math]
|
Prev: infinity ...
Next: The set of All sets
From: Ka-In Yen on 4 Jul 2006 20:02 Eric Gisse wrote: > Ka-In Yen wrote: > > [...] > > > > > A^(-1) = 1/A = A/A^2 > > VECTOR DIVISION IS *NOT* A DEFINED OPERATION! > Hamilton had defined vector divisoion in 1845. I had posted this message before. > [...] > > > > > Area vector is chinilish(chinese-english). It's my bad, my > > english is not so well. Area vector(chinilish) is same to > > vector area(english). > > It is neither the fault of Chinese (which Chinese? There is a bunch) > nor English that you do not know what you are talking about. Please read the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product and you will find: "It is defined as the vector which is perpendicular to both a and b with a magnitude equal to the area of the parallelogram they span." This is what I am talking about.
From: Ka-In Yen on 4 Jul 2006 20:08 Bilge wrote: > Ka-In Yen, crackpot of the day: > > >Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > [...] > >> What does the direction in a mass vector represent? > > > >In 3D vector algebra, we have to divide a mass by a length vector; so > >the linear mass density is a vector, and its direction is same to the > >length vector. > > You need a remedial course in vector algebra. Length is a scalar. > The length of a vector, V is defined by L = sqrt(V.V). A linear > mass density is a scalar.
From: Ka-In Yen on 4 Jul 2006 20:10 Bilge wrote: > Ka-In Yen, crackpot of the day: > > >Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > [...] > >> What does the direction in a mass vector represent? > > > >In 3D vector algebra, we have to divide a mass by a length vector; so > >the linear mass density is a vector, and its direction is same to the > >length vector. > > You need a remedial course in vector algebra. Stupid physicists have been doing vector by vector division for a hundred years. They need a remedial course in vector algebra, not me. > A linear mass density is a scalar. That's not 3D vector algebra.
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 4 Jul 2006 20:14 In article <1152058227.247299.229410(a)a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Ka-In Yen <yenkain(a)yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > Stupid physicists have been doing vector by vector division > for a hundred years. They need a remedial course in vector > algebra, not me. > > > A linear mass density is a scalar. > > That's not 3D vector algebra. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorDivision.html There is no unique solution A to the matrix equation y=Ax unless x is parallel to y, in which case A is a scalar. Therefore, vector division is not defined. http://www.mcasco.com/qa_vdq.html Division may be thought of as unmultiplying...you know, find the number which when multiplied by 3 yields 6. In this example the answer is obviously 2. In vectors there are two ways of multiplying, the dot product and the cross product. Vector division then should either undot a vector and a scalar or uncross a pair of vectors. The difficulty is that there are more than one vector that when dotted with (a,b) yields 6, for example. We know this because the dot product of (a,b)(c,d) is ac+bd=6. If we know a and b there are still two unknowns in the equation ac+bd=6. Any pair if numbers which satisfy this equation would qualify as the quotient of 6/(a,b). Therefore dot division is not defined. Likewise there are infinitely many vectors which when crossed with (a,b,c) give us (d,e,f). Consider that AXB=C=|A||B|sin(q), where q is the angle from A to B. Any vector V in the plane of A and B where |V|sin(u)=|B|sin(q) will yield the same cross product. Again there are two unknowns, |V| and u, in the equation so there are infinitely many answers. Therefore cross division is also undefined. -- Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ "Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches the odour of roses." -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Official emperor of sci.physics, head mumbler of the "Cult of INSANE SCIENCE". Please pay no attention to my butt poking forward, it is expanding. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ PWNER of Vert and TomGee since 2006 "I don't know that much math." - tomgee; 2 April 2006 "I don't claim to know what I'm talking about" - tomgee; 10 May 2006 PWNED "Puddlefuck tou are on my kill file. Good bye" - Vert admits he cannot calculate \gamma for a photon and admits defeat - 2nd July 2006 PWNED
From: Eric Gisse on 4 Jul 2006 20:48
Ka-In Yen wrote: > Eric Gisse wrote: > > Ka-In Yen wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > A^(-1) = 1/A = A/A^2 > > > > VECTOR DIVISION IS *NOT* A DEFINED OPERATION! > > > > Hamilton had defined vector divisoion in 1845. I had posted > this message before. Good for you. Why don't you look at the previous responses to the times you have pointed this out, and look at the responses given to you today. > > > [...] > > > > > > > > Area vector is chinilish(chinese-english). It's my bad, my > > > english is not so well. Area vector(chinilish) is same to > > > vector area(english). > > > > It is neither the fault of Chinese (which Chinese? There is a bunch) > > nor English that you do not know what you are talking about. > > Please read the following page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_product I know what the cross product is. > > and you will find: > > "It is defined as the vector which is perpendicular > to both a and b with a magnitude equal to the > area of the parallelogram they span." > > This is what I am talking about. MAGNITUDE IS A SCALAR. Goddamn you are stupid. Go read a book that covers vector analysis and stop inventing idiotic terminology. |