| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Yes, it's correct and it's same as <math> 12 I_2 -8 I_3 = 24.</math> | Yes, it's correct and it's same as <math> 12 I_2 -8 I_3 = 24.</math> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Remark from [[User:Bell|Steve Bell]] : | ||
| + | |||
| + | I remember from my engineering days that engineers make one | ||
| + | convention about the sign of the increase in voltage around | ||
| + | a loop in Kirchoff's Laws and physicists make the opposite | ||
| + | convention, so this might be a cultural thing. The important | ||
| + | thing to understand here is the math. | ||
Question form a student : | Question form a student : | ||
| Line 33: | Line 41: | ||
When a problem asks you to show or prove something, you need to provide proof. When a problem asks you to disprove something, you need to give an example. | When a problem asks you to show or prove something, you need to provide proof. When a problem asks you to disprove something, you need to give an example. | ||
| − | Hence, you need to prove #12, 14, and 15. There is a theorem about | + | Hence, you need to prove #12, 14, and 15. There is a theorem about rank in sec 7.4. With this theorem, you can show the properties in #12, 14, and 15 easily. |
| + | |||
| + | Remark from [[User:Bell|Steve Bell]] : | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps the word "proof" is overkill here. I would like you to be | ||
| + | able to explain in words why something is a general fact, much like | ||
| + | I do in class. It doesn't need to feel like a mathematical proof, but | ||
| + | it does need to be convincing. | ||
Revision as of 10:09, 26 August 2013
Homework 1 collaboration area
Feel free to toss around ideas here. Feel free to form teams to toss around ideas. Feel free to create your own workspace for your own team. --Steve Bell
Here is my favorite formula:
$ f(a)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\gamma \frac{f(z)}{z-a}\ dz. $
This is a test formula:
$ A \vec x= \vec b $ - Eun Young
Question from a student :
I have a question on the Kirchoff law problem, section 7.3 problem 18. On the loop portion of the defining equations, relative to a clockwise direction, I find the equation of the right loop to be -12 I2 + 8 I3 = -24. Is this correct to assume the I2 term is negative due to the counterclockwise flow of I2, as with the voltage term?
Answer from Eun Young :
Yes, it's correct and it's same as $ 12 I_2 -8 I_3 = 24. $
Remark from Steve Bell :
I remember from my engineering days that engineers make one convention about the sign of the increase in voltage around a loop in Kirchoff's Laws and physicists make the opposite convention, so this might be a cultural thing. The important thing to understand here is the math.
Question form a student :
That equation is the same thing I got, I just took a different direction for my KVL around the loop (e.g. $ 12 I_2 - 8 I_3 = 24 $). However, I don't fully understand what your question is. I do however have a question on p. 287 #12, 14, and 15. Is the book looking for a rigorous proof or just an example of this property? --Rrusson 18:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Answer from Eun Young :
When a problem asks you to show or prove something, you need to provide proof. When a problem asks you to disprove something, you need to give an example. Hence, you need to prove #12, 14, and 15. There is a theorem about rank in sec 7.4. With this theorem, you can show the properties in #12, 14, and 15 easily.
Remark from Steve Bell :
Perhaps the word "proof" is overkill here. I would like you to be able to explain in words why something is a general fact, much like I do in class. It doesn't need to feel like a mathematical proof, but it does need to be convincing.
