Recent content by mosenja

I have used the Haberman book and it's decent... for learning techniques. His style of writing bugs me to no end though. He uses a lot of words to say very little. Furthermore, there are some paragraphs in which the phrase "(non)-homogeneous linear partial differential equation" appears at...

What's wrong with Foundations of Modern Analysis by Dieudonné?

Ok, maybe my question was a bit too general and/or vague. The reviews on amazon.com for those two books are quite mixed, and some are irrelevant. Does anyone here have anything good or bad to say about either of them? If you have used either in the past, would you recommend it?

You're right. The way I set up the problem is incorrect. Well, you're kind of right. I don't think the problem is asking for foldable tabs as in the picture. They are probably asking for something like this: http://imgur.com/EEJy4" (sorry for the crappy paint drawing), where you are to cut...

Indeed. Using what you wrote above, we have: 400=2hw+2hl+lw => 400-wl=h(2w+2l) => (400-wl)/(2w+2l)=h Hence V = lwh = lw*(400-wl)/(2w+2l). Now what do you do to find the maximum of V as a function of w and l?

yep, my interpretation of the problem is that you have 400in^2 of cardboard to make as large of a topless box as you can. So you want to maximize V(l,h,w) = l*h*w given that S(l,h,w) = 2(hw)+2(hl)+(lw) = 400. If you know the Lagrange multiplier technique, use that. If not, you will need to...

you have the volume equation correct, but your constraint equation should be (surface area) = 20in * 20in = 400 in^2. so what is the surface area of a topless box? figure that out, then its a straightforward application of the lagrange multiplier technique.

I'm fairly sure he means that he is a freshman in high school.

Title says it all. But to further elaborate... it's been about 12 years since I had general chemistry, I don't remember any of it, and would like to pick up a textbook to refresh my knowledge. I majored in math and physics, so I would prefer the book not to dodge the use of, say, calculus...

Not quite sure what you mean. And actually I have another 'exercise' with which I need help; it appears to be related to the above question. Let v be a nonzero vector in a vector space V and E be a basis for V which contains the vector v. Then there exists a linear functional \phi \in V^*...

Well if \hat{f}(e) = 0 for all e \in B , I'm lead to unsatisfactory conclusion that f = 0 . (Unsatisfactory since f is, by assumption, a member of the basis B; 0 is never a member of a linearly independent set.) Hrmm... If we write the following: f = (\sum_{e \in B -...

If f = \sum_{e \in B} \hat{f}(e)e then since B is a basis we must have \hat{f}(e) = 0 for all e in B. Yes? No?

This subject came up in some notes on linear algebra I'm reading and I don't get it. Please help me understand. -- First, the relevant background and notation relating to my question: Let S be a nonempty set and F be a field. Denote by l(S) the family of all F-valued functions on S and...