Recent content by Suyogya

What I can infer from your explanation is that the pseudo force should be applied on right hand side on the frame because the reference frame is moving on left with acceleration ##\vec{a}## , along with the bead. Hence the net acceleration on the frame is now zero, and the from the frame the...

I'm often got confused about why the direction of pseudo force is taken opposite to the direction of motion of the body. As specific, I have this question. In this, I didn't understood about why the direction of pseudo force is taken in right, in the diagram of solution provided to this...

how can 0/0 be indeterminate form if division by zero is undefined. The expression 0/0 rather be undefined.

wikipedia says: "The exponential function, g: R → R, g(x) = ex, is not bijective: for instance, there is no x in R such that g(x) = −1, showing that g is not onto (surjective). However, if the codomain is restricted to the positive real numbers R+, then g becomes bijective; its inverse is the...

thanks for correcting

let be name the points as,(https://ibb.co/2srLjB1) if AC would be an edge then A and C are vertices and segments BC, AC, AD, CE became edges. Is this justified Also for a simple polygon there should be no self intersecting edge, the line AC just touches the lines BD and BE, is this sufficient to...

Can someone please tell is this (https://ibb.co/stGFSKs) figure a polygon. If yes then is the middle line would count as an edge?

If the euclid division lemma was not discovered by euclid himself, then why was the name "euclid lemma"? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_division#History)

please tell the following: is the need to show that r lies in S U {0} just because to compare r is less than or equal to d (as d also belongs to S U {0})? So are only the same set elements can be compared? If yes, then consider a counter example, set a={10}, set b={5} couldn't we say 5<10 (as...

what is the need to show that r belongs to S U {0} in proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zout%27s_identity#Proof) r is zero afterall, whether it lies in S U {0} or not doesn't affect.

I proved it by assuming p an integer, hence should be valid for composites as well as primes, but its only for primes actually. so where its wrong

"If a prime p divides the product ab of two integers a and b,then p must divide at least one of those integers a and b."(its euclid lemma true for primes only) when i tried to prove it as: let for any integer p divides ab (ab)=(pn) ;for some integer n (a*b)/p=n since RHS is integer, therefore...

Angles are physical quantities (as written in the Wikipedia's list of derived quantities)

I already know the fact that angles are physical quantities, but sin, cos of some angles are quantities? Quantities are those things, which can be quantified, are sin, cos, tan be quantified through measurement, if yes then other mathematical functions should also be categorised as physical...