Simple proportionality question

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmvince
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proportionality
AI Thread Summary
The equation v = (Gm/r)1/2 indicates that velocity (v) is inversely proportional to the square root of radius (r), specifically v is proportional to r^-1/2. It is incorrect to state that v is inversely proportional to r without the square root, as this implies a direct relationship instead. The discussion emphasizes the importance of using precise mathematical language to avoid confusion, especially in academic settings. Participants agree that clarity in terminology is crucial to ensure accurate understanding and communication of concepts. Proper phrasing helps prevent losing marks in exams due to misinterpretation.
hmvince
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, simple question really:
Given the equation
Code:
v = (Gm/r)[SUP]1/2[/SUP]
Is it wrong to say
Code:
v is inversely proportional to r
Or do you have to say
Code:
v is inverslely proportional to r[SUP]1/2[/SUP]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hey hmvince! :wink:
hmvince said:
Is it wrong to say
Code:
v is inversely proportional to r

yes! :smile:
Or do you have to say
Code:
v is inverslely proportional to r[SUP]1/2[/SUP]

you don't have to say "inverslely"! o:)
 
I thought you did have to, cos if you don't it means v increases with r, instead of v decreases with r.
Do you mean to say this?:
v is directly proportional to r-1/2?

Looking at your number of posts and recognitions I don't mean to say you are wrong, just trying to figure it out for myself!
 
hi hmvince! :wink:

yes, it's always best to ask until you're sure

no point in losing even one mark in an exam by knowing the maths but not using the generally-accepted phrase! :smile:

you can say

v is proportional to r-1/2

or

v is inversely proportional to r1/2

or

v and r-1/2 are proportional

or

v and r1/2 are inversely proportional​

(and you don't need "directly", since it adds no information … but it isn't actually wrong)
 
Thankyou!
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Back
Top