Recent content by HakimPhilo

There's also ##\lg## which denotes ##\log_2##.

For self-studying, there doesn't exist a better bibliography than this one. I highly recommend it!

##\psi## for sure.

Basically it comes from this really simple idea: "The tangent line to ##x_0## resembles the curve near ##x_0##". For instance the curve defined by ##y=\sin x## resembles the tangent line to it at ##0## near zero: For example it is really hard to determine...

Why not just start using Detexify? You draw a symbol and it will provide you with its LaTeX code.

The site is much more dynamic, hence more users will feel a lot more comfortable here. Thanks for the great work @staff !

To understand more the philosophy of the infinite read Rucker - Infinity and the mind, it will clarify a lot of misconceptions you have. 1) Infinity isn't odd nor even if you try to apply the definition of an odd and an even number it will basically fail for the infinite, adding to that the...

If you meant a proof for that such expression with ##C\in\{5,6,7,\ldots\}## don't have a general closed form then look at the Abel-Ruffini theorem.

So a general closed form does not exist.

There's the excellent Chicago mathematics bibliography: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~abhishek/chicmath.htm which is divided into 3 parts: ELEMENTARY Algebra (4) Geometry (2) Foundations (1) Problem solving (4) Calculus (6) Bridges to intermediate topics (2)...

Here's an outline of the solution: As pointed out by Student100 the substitution ##\cos\theta\leadsto x## produces a quadratic, and if you know the roots of a quadratic -- say ##ax^2+bx+c## with roots ##r_1,r_2## if any -- then you can factor it as ##a(x-r_1)(x-r_2)##. The only step that remains...

This system of linear equations, like any other, can be solved by first writing it in upper-triangular form then using the method of back-substitution. Let's first define the terms we used: A system in upper-triangular form is one like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_numbers#Applications

Thanks but I finished both books now. :)

I was having the same problem as you some time ago, where I decided to use Kleppner as a first exposition to physics. But I lamentably failed since I didn't have much of the basic university physics knowledge and I didn't know calculus at that time either. But I eventually found the solution...