1. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

2. Dec 17, 2013

Moved from where to where?

3. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

Calculus and Beyond HW to Precalculus HW.

4. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

I need to get to bed, so...

Last time I checked vectors and points in Cartesian coordinates is a Calc 3 problem. If a mentor could put it back then all will be right with the Universe again.

Good night physicsforums.

5. Dec 17, 2013

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Just because it is used in a problem, doesn't mean in belongs in that category. That's like saying an elementary algebra problem belongs in a QFT topic simply because algebra is used in solving a QFT problem.

The problem you posted is an elementary vector problem. It is a typical problem one sees in such a course, and it is also of that level. Thus, it is has been moved to the more appropriate forum.

Zz.

6. Dec 17, 2013

Staff Emeritus
Funny, because last time I checked, vectors and points in Cartesian coordinates is a geometry problem.

7. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

Elementary or not, this subject has only been covered in Calc 3. Further Howard Anton, Flanders, and even Stewart disagree with your assessment. Perhaps your sequence of topics covered was different than mine, what class did you first cover this topic?

8. Dec 17, 2013

Staff Emeritus
I was doing problems like this in high school.

In any event, the decision has been made, and you have been given an explanation why.

9. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

On the topic at hand, I was unaware that physicsforums had the authority to redefine what is covered in the general sections of coursework. Perhaps you should inform the Universities and colleges throughout The United States of your change so they can be more 'up to date'.

10. Dec 17, 2013

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
I did vectors in high school, as with Vanadium. In fact, one needs to know these to do simple high-school kinematics problems. If not, how else does one know how to resolve velocity and momentum vectors in physics problems? And during my brief stint outside of the US, I've taught A-level physics, and text such as Nelkon-Parker used only algebra and geometry to solve physics problems, no calculus. So even in such an educational system, algebra and geometry are often taught FIRST, ahead of calculus.

Furthermore, you cannot start doing calculus without understanding basic algebra and geometry. In fact, in many colleges, the prerequisite to enrolling in calculus courses is often those two subject areas.

But what is puzzling here, why are you "offended" that the thread was moved? Do you think that you won't get the same level of help if it is in its current forum?

Zz.

11. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

The courses I took in Physics before Calc 3 did not provide the information required to answer the question I posted, however my Calc 3 course did.

Certainly not, the help is not at question.

I do however take offense to the notion that the physicsforums feels it is okay to redefine a standard sequence for course work that goes against the 3 most popular textbooks (in the United States) and that which is standard material covered in almost every University and College here.

12. Dec 17, 2013

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Come again?

I used Thomas-Finney as my calculus text in college. You simply will NOT be able to understand that text without prior knowledge of algebra/trig/geometry! And last time I checked, that is a very popular text in US colleges.

Secondly, I checked my alma-mater again to see if the course sequence has changed. ALL the calculus courses that I looked up in the Math department all had the same algebra/trig/geometry prerequisites!

http://www.math.wisc.edu/UCourses

For physics/math/engineering student, Math 221/222/etc sequence clearly shows the necessary prerequisites of having algebra/trig/geometry requirement!

So how are we redefining the standard sequence again?

Zz.

13. Dec 17, 2013

### mesa

The information provided in my previous classes was not enough to answer the question which I posted however that which was taught in my Calc 3 course did.

It is wonderful that your education was of higher caliber than what is taught today and I DO find it unfortunate that these topics are not covered in better detail earlier on.

Either way, my point is simple, the question came directly from a standard Calculus course and can not be answered by the topics covered previously hence it is a Calc 3 problem regardless of how elementary the physicsforums may believe it is.

14. Dec 17, 2013

### Staff: Mentor

I learned enough about vectors to solve this problem when I was around 16, and I wasn't even in so called "mathphys" class, but in "biochem", with a limited math. We did some basic calculus much later. Granted, it was not in US and at some distant point in time, but it only shows that the question is quite basic. I would move it to precalc as well.

15. Dec 17, 2013

### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
But that doesn't give you any basis to make the accusation that we, at PF, are "redefining" the college math sequence. I've given you one evidence where the very exact sequence and pre-requisites are in line with the structure that we have in the HW/Coursework forum. So it is perfectly plausible (in fact, I would argue, even MORE likely) that we have it right. You have somehow used YOUR example as the overriding standard for mathematics education.

THAT is what we are arguing here, not in which class you got what to solve your problem.

Zz.

16. Dec 17, 2013

### Staff: Mentor

The reason we move threads is so that they are placed in the forum where they are most likely to receive proper help. What matters is where most people would expect to find such a problem.