Solving a Math Problem: ΣKQ^n & ΔQΣKnQ^(n-1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter foo9008
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the mathematical expression ΔQΣKnQ^(n-1) in relation to ΣKQ^n. The key point is that the transformation relies on the approximation that ΔQ is much smaller than Q, allowing the expansion of (Q + ΔQ)^2 to simplify to Q^2 + 2QΔQ. This approximation is valid in later iterations, as ΔQ decreases. The conversation also touches on differentiation, relating it to the Newton method for solving equations. Overall, the participants are working through the nuances of these mathematical concepts to clarify the problem.
foo9008
Messages
676
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


in the second picture (refer to the circled part) , i can understand the ΣKQ^n , but i don't understand the second one , why it will become ΔQΣKnQ^(n-1) ?

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution

 

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    45.8 KB · Views: 343
  • 02.jpg
    02.jpg
    45.1 KB · Views: 370
  • 03.jpg
    03.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 328
Physics news on Phys.org
Can't read the exponents. Did you understand 5.13 ?
 
BvU said:
Can't read the exponents. Did you understand 5.13 ?
not really
 
It all hinges on $$\Delta Q << Q \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ (Q + \Delta Q)^2 = Q^2 + 2 Q\, \Delta Q + (\Delta Q)^2\approx Q^2 + 2 Q \Delta Q$$ which is satisfied (maybe not in the first iteration, but later on it is) -- ##\Delta Q## gets smaller and smaller if you do things right.
(I filled in n = 2 for simplicity)

You could also see this as a differentiation ( ##{dh\over dQ} = 2KQ {\rm \ \ or \ \ } \Delta h = 2 Q \Delta Q ## ) and then the method is basically the Newton method
 
BvU said:
It all hinges on $$\Delta Q << Q \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ (Q + \Delta Q)^2 = Q^2 + 2 Q\, \Delta Q + (\Delta Q)^2\approx Q^2 + 2 Q \Delta Q$$ which is satisfied (maybe not in the first iteration, but later on it is) -- ##\Delta Q## gets smaller and smaller if you do things right.
(I filled in n = 2 for simplicity)

You could also see this as a differentiation ( ##{dh\over dQ} = 2KQ {\rm \ \ or \ \ } \Delta h = 2 Q \Delta Q ## ) and then the method is basically the Newton method
removed
 
??
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top