MHB How to Derive Answers Using N Formula

  • Thread starter Thread starter DYLAN4321
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deriving answers using a specific formula in Excel, with a focus on the variable T2 and its relation to Newtons (N). Participants highlight confusion regarding the absence of "N" in the equation and question the clarity of the formula's intended computation. The Newton-Raphson method is suggested as a potential solution approach, although its relevance to the quadratic nature of the equation is debated. Additionally, discrepancies in calculated values for T2 prompt further clarification on the formula's application. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the need for a clear understanding of the equation and its components for accurate implementation in Excel.
DYLAN4321
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have been given the attachment formula and asked to enter this into an excel spreadsheet. Although I am not entirely sure how the answer was derived. Is anyone able to explain step by step as I want to try and enter this into an excel spreadsheet. For reference N = Newtons
 

Attachments

  • equation.png
    equation.png
    5.7 KB · Views: 117
Mathematics news on Phys.org
DYLAN4321 said:
Hi,

I have been given the attachment formula and asked to enter this into an excel spreadsheet. Although I am not entirely sure how the answer was derived. Is anyone able to explain step by step as I want to try and enter this into an excel spreadsheet. For reference N = Newtons
I believe you were suggested to look up a solution method, the Newton-Raphson approximation being one method mentioned. Do you have a solution method you would like to use? Excel will not simply solve it for you.

-Dan
 
There is no "N" in the given equation so there can be no "N" in the answer! Have you left something out?
 
DYLAN4321 said:
I have been given the attachment formula and asked to enter this into an excel spreadsheet.
It is not clear what your Excel formula is supposed to compute: $$\frac{7134611197}{T_2^2}-T_2$$ for the given value of $T_2$, the value of $T_2$ for the given left-hand side of this equation or something else. Also, for $T_2=956$ we have $$\frac{7134611197}{T_2^2}-T_2\approx6850$$ and not $6863$.

topsquark said:
I believe you were suggested to look up a solution method, the Newton-Raphson approximation being one method mentioned.
Mentioned where? This is a quadratic equation in $T_2$.

HallsofIvy said:
There is no "N" in the given equation
N is the units in which $T_2$ is measured.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Mentioned where? This is a quadratic equation in $T_2$.
The OP also posted this on another site. Sorry, I should have included the link to it.

-Dan
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top