How were these linear motion equations derived?

jshpark
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
how were these equations derived or found?

x = xo + vot + 1/2at2I tried to use v=(xf-xi)/(tf-ti) and a=(vf-vi)/(tf-ti)

but I don't know where the 1/2 comes from

also this one:
v2 = vo2 + 2a(xf-xi)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The first one is what you get if you integrate the equation that describes constant acceleration twice. If the acceleration is constant (=a), we have
$$x''(t)=a$$ This implies that there's a constant ##v_0## such that $$x'(t)=at+v_0.$$ The constant is denoted by ##v_0## because ##x'(t)## is the velocity at time t, and the result we just found implies that ##x'(0)=v_0##, so ##v_0## is the velocity at time 0. The result we found also implies that there's a constant ##x_0## such that
$$x(t)=\frac 1 2 at^2+v_0t+x_0.$$ The constant is denoted by ##x_0## because it's equal to ##x(0)##, the position at time 0.

The other one follows from the result for the velocity above, and
$$v(t)-v_0=\int_0^t x''(t)dt=at.$$ These results imply that
$$v(t)^2=(v_0+at)^2=v_0{}^2+a^2t^2+2v_0at=v_0{}^2+2a\bigg(\frac 1 2 at^2+v_0t\bigg)=(v_0)^2+2a(x(t)-x_0).$$

I think the formula you wrote down only holds if ##v(t_i)=v_0##, so you may want to check your book to see if it says exactly what you wrote, or something slightly different.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top