Recent content by Quintessential

And here I thought, that was a big no no. Thanks again!

Makes sense, thanks! I was confused because for some of the exercises, I couldn't reach the right conclusion. For example, the following's conclusion should be t, Given: {p∨q, q→r, p∧s→t, ¬r, ¬q→u∧s} Yet I find q∨t. That said. If you prove a contradiction between two premises, and thus dismiss...

Given the following premises: {¬p→r∧¬s, t→s, u→¬p, ¬w, u∨w} The conclusion is said to be: ¬t∨w Here are my steps. My conclusion is different from the supposed one, therefore I would appreciate it if any of you can point out my error. Thank You. 1 ¬p→(r∧¬s) Premise 2 p∨(r∧¬s) Implication law...

Perfect. Makes sense. $$\Delta V = -E \int_0^{b-a} {dl}$$ I think I can take E out of the dot product seeing as how $$cos(\theta)=1$$, rather the Electric field lines are parallel with the normal of the inner cylinder surface packets $$dl$$ And I'll have to integrate from 0 to the distance...

Thanks a bunch for the helpful input! Regarding the following: Had the cylinder been infinitely long vertically, would the electric field have been constant?

So far I have learned about Coulomb's law, the electric field, gauss's law, the electric potential and now capacitance. I feel that although I "know of" these topics, I don't actually "flow with them". Ignoring the math for a second; I want to form an understanding. And I think calculating the...

This is essentially the problem. And this is what I did. Realizing the following: E = -▽V I simply took the derivative in regards to the vertical component, in this case "a". So: -dV/da [the above formulae] And I got the following: Κλl/(a sqrt(l^2+a^2)) Does that seem about right...