Recent content by Bunting

Out of interest can that be used for any means of combinational error ? I.e. f = (d2 - d1) / (d2 + d1) Can I just take derivatives and then use the chain rule, or because d2 and d1 have the same error it can be done differantly ?

Oops, sorry about the lack of thanks here! I read it ages ago, use dit then must have forgotten! :S Thank you for the help :)

I didn't really know on the forum to put this, it isn't really homework or coursework, but it is a very small part of a project I am doing for uni, so essentially it could be worth marks so here it is, anyway... Homework Statement Im rubbish at combining errors and was wondering if someone...

Hello So I have a problem, which is to use integration by parts to integrate... \int^{1}_{0}(1-x) ln (1-x) dx The way I have been working is it to separate it out into just... \int^{1}_{0}ln (1-x) dx - \int^{1}_{0}x ln (1-x) dx and then integrating by parts on each of these...

Yeah, I was basically just being rubbish at maths/not thinking about it properly.

Aye I did thanks! :) Great, thank you all for your help!

Yes that's correct :) Sorry, I have difficulty explaining things I don't understand very well, but I am getting there. The point of these seems to be that if you can conjugate the example and get back to your origonal statement then your statement is Hermitian (or at least this is the point...

oh i see, so... (\hat{O} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger} = \hat{O}^{\dagger} + \hat{O}^{\dagger}^{\dagger} = \hat{O} + \hat{O}^{\dagger} thus proving it is hermitian. Ok, so, in a similar vein... \hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger} = (\hat{O}\hat{O}^{\dagger}) ^{\dagger} =...

Sorry, I think I meant Hermitian operators. Thank you for the replies but it doesn't help me very much but I think that's maybe because I am asking hthe question wrong! :S What I am asking is how I would recognise the answer as a Hermitian in particular? Is it hermitian because...

So I am working up to some exams and have a question regarding properties of hermitians, specifically the properties of Hamiltonian operators and trying to prove that for example if.. \hat{O} is a hamiltonian operator then... \hat{O} + \hat{O}\dagger is hermitian*. Now what I think I am...

ok, scratch that last post - I've been re-reading lecture notes and think I've got a greater understanding - though the "eigenfunctions" are still eluding me. I know what they ARE, just not really if I have foundthem... First I separated the equation into the regions defined (x>0 and x<0) then...

if I do this in the conventional way (rearrange into an equation with a y'' a y' and a y and come up with two roots of the form... alpha(1,2) = ± m((4*h(bar)^2*[v(x) - E])/2m) / h(bar)^2 I have read some examples which seem to suggest a better way of going about this is to let phi = A*e^ikx -...

First it asks a few questions about what if it were a classical particle approaching the barrier. Much of this I understand and am OK with. Then we start treating the particle as a quantum thing so its governed by the TI Schrödinger EQ. So, what it wants me to do which I am a bit unsure about...

Im scared how all through my life everybody knows me and I know nobody... Maybe I am the guy from the truman show *shifty eyes* Also, it seems /everybody/ who takes it will be there! :S Evil maths for the lose.

just a few bits I don't understand still, bear with me if you will :) the first bit you say we need to get the intergral(9t^2), but I could have done that right from the start, AFTER saying B(r) = this and r = that. You later go on to say "The integral of F on a path r is the dot product F.R" -...