Quote:
Original post by Sagar_Indurkhya
2) What is the most beautiful equation you have ever seen? Explain.
Most beautiful equation? My hat's going in the ring for general relativity:
G_{μν} = 8π · GT_{μν}
Please make sure you have fully read our posting guidelines
Subscribe to GameDev.net Direct to receive the latest updates and exclusive content.
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.
Posted 09 February 2005 - 10:28 AM
Quote:
Original post by furby100 Quote:
Original post by Sagar_Indurkhya
2) What is the most beautiful equation you have ever seen? Explain.
x=2. This equation is satisfied by 2. It follows that there are numbers that satisfy the equation x = 2. From that, it follows that there are numbers. From this simple equation one can settle one of the deepest philosophical questions about mathematics. Certainly a beautiful result.
However, it's almost certain most people will put e^{ip} + 1 = 0
Posted 09 February 2005 - 10:29 AM
Quote:
Original post by Sagar_Indurkhya Quote:
Original post by furby100
However, it's almost certain most people will put e^{ip} + 1 = 0
never seen that one. What is it?
Posted 09 February 2005 - 11:50 AM
Quote:
Original post by JexMX
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Posted 10 February 2005 - 11:04 AM
Posted 10 February 2005 - 11:30 AM
Quote:So, you say that the egg type is defined by what pooped out the egg, and not what's in the egg. Still, the question is whether the egg preceded the chicken. I don't think it matters what type of egg, just that there was indeed an egg directly related to the first chicken, that indeed preceded it.
Original post by Stonicus
I'd say the chicken. If a non-chicken lays an egg, it's not a chicken egg. What came out was a chicken, but it wasn't supposed to be, so it wasn't a chicken egg, it was a mutated relative-of-chicken egg... So the first chicken egg had to come from a chicken, but the first chicken can come from a mutated Dodo egg.
Posted 28 March 2011 - 10:46 AM
Posted 29 March 2011 - 06:38 AM
x=2. This equation is satisfied by 2. It follows that there are numbers that satisfy the equation x = 2. From that, it follows that there are numbers. From this simple equation one can settle one of the deepest philosophical questions about mathematics. Certainly a beautiful result.
However, it's almost certain most people will put e^{ip} + 1 = 0
If you suppose that it were somehow physically possible to shrink yourself to that size without diminishing your normal human capabilities, then you should consider that your strength (a function of the area of your cross-section, proportional to the square of your height) has been reduced about 4900 times, but your mass (a function of your volume, proportional to the cube of your height, given that your density remains the same) has been reduced 343000 times. If you currently have a 24-inch vertical leap, you'd still have a 24-inch vertical leap regardless of how small you became. So given those facts, you could simply jump out of the blender.
Another interesting thing to note: you'd actually have what seems to be 70 minutes to come up with the solution, because time would travel 70 times slower for you at that size. The speed of light and the speed of electrons is constant, but when you're tiny, photons and electrons have less distance to travel.
Posted 29 March 2011 - 08:51 AM
What about x=0? That has the same as above, but adds in that there is some number representing no quantity at all.
Posted 29 March 2011 - 11:52 AM
What is a rotated array?but rotated array of integers.
Posted 29 March 2011 - 01:44 PM
Binary search has worst-case O(logn).ex: [4,5,1,2,3] would be a sorted rotated array.
edit: as far as writing a binary search on it, you could just write a function to translate their element index into their data index and perform a binary search using that function to access the elements the way you would normally do a binary search. Not sure if that's the optimal solution, but it seems to be the simplest on my mental state atm.
double edit: I think it's actually better to find where your array gets split, then run a binary search on the half that should contain the element. Since you have to search for the spot where it's split anyway, this uses that step to also eliminate some of the elements before starting the binary search even starts.
Posted 31 March 2011 - 01:19 PM
I thought since the light has less distance to travel, things would seem faster.....x=2. This equation is satisfied by 2. It follows that there are numbers that satisfy the equation x = 2. From that, it follows that there are numbers. From this simple equation one can settle one of the deepest philosophical questions about mathematics. Certainly a beautiful result.
However, it's almost certain most people will put e^{ip} + 1 = 0
What about x=0? That has the same as above, but adds in that there is some number representing no quantity at all.
On the blender:
http://www.realkato....log.php?pid=857If you suppose that it were somehow physically possible to shrink yourself to that size without diminishing your normal human capabilities, then you should consider that your strength (a function of the area of your cross-section, proportional to the square of your height) has been reduced about 4900 times, but your mass (a function of your volume, proportional to the cube of your height, given that your density remains the same) has been reduced 343000 times. If you currently have a 24-inch vertical leap, you'd still have a 24-inch vertical leap regardless of how small you became. So given those facts, you could simply jump out of the blender.
Another interesting thing to note: you'd actually have what seems to be 70 minutes to come up with the solution, because time would travel 70 times slower for you at that size. The speed of light and the speed of electrons is constant, but when you're tiny, photons and electrons have less distance to travel.
Posted 31 March 2011 - 01:40 PM
I thought since the light has less distance to travel, things would seem faster.....
Posted 21 April 2011 - 12:46 PM
Oooo. I like that. I didn't realize it before.Binary search has worst-case O(logn).
Finding split point is O(n), so finding the point of rotation is several times more expensive than search itself.
Since array is sorted, recursive split can be used to determine which half is out of order. Predicates for binary search are: left < mid < right (equalities optional)
Posted 19 May 2011 - 09:48 AM
Posted 19 May 2011 - 04:51 PM
Oooo. I like that. I didn't realize it before.Binary search has worst-case O(logn).
Finding split point is O(n), so finding the point of rotation is several times more expensive than search itself.
Since array is sorted, recursive split can be used to determine which half is out of order. Predicates for binary search are: left < mid < right (equalities optional)
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.
GameDev.net™, the GameDev.net logo, and GDNet™ are trademarks of GameDev.net, LLC.