You're running away with it on the x-axis.
Printable View
You're running away with it on the x-axis.
Very interesting Macky.... In a University/College viewpointQuote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
And above my pay grade, you will have to wait for Idol to wake up from his beauty sleep for his response:D and i know there will be one coming :yup:
Well if you know anyone with low miles selling?? (since you know everything else)Quote:
Originally Posted by STHNSv3
This one was good enough for Bond.....
Attachment 165217
I owned and drove one of these for a while....
Attachment 165218
Always looking for a deal on vintage cars, more interesting to talk about in the lounge then running vintage servers for torrent sharing:01:
You have my gratitude for breaking up my routine of correcting your language to instead correct errors in your arithmetic, or rather its attempted proof. First, I'll show you one correct approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by STHNSv3
Since these dates are close to each other, you could just start with 8 years minus 27 days, but then add 2 days because of the occurrence of leap years (Feb 2008 and Feb 2012).
8 × 365 – 27 + 2 = 2895
You could use weeks or years to accurately calculate the number of days, but to propose that you can use a multiple of months would be erroneous. Let me show you the error in the proof you tried to provide (all rounded to the nearest integer).
7 * 365 + 11 × 30 + 4 = 2889
7 * 365 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2893
7 * 365.25 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2895
The third calculation, which factors in the quarter of a day we bank each year and the average days of the month, may seem correct, but an offset of the dates or too few months would force an error. You fail to demonstrate a grasp of these nuances in your explanation. This leads me to conclude that you used a method that doesn't require any calculations on your part, but then you tried to reverse engineer with the goal of tricking an audience into believing you're capable of something that simple. It was rather transparent given the lack of critical thought.
Lastly, the conventions for division are to use a forward slash in place of the division symbol. The division symbol, ÷, can be produced using the Alt code Alt+0247. There is no standard convention for using the percent symbol for division. It has one use in programming, in which it is used to return the remainder of a quotient, but that's hardly equivalent.
Furthermore, if you divide 27,000 by 2895, that gives 9.3 (to two significant digits), which would round to 9 posts/day rather than 10 posts/day because you'll want to round down if the subsequent digit is less than 5. If you calculated 9.5, you could round that up to 10 as the nearest integer.
I started this post expressing gratitude, but I take that back. Your arithmetic is rife with errors, and I don't want to encourage you to give me more knots to comb.
This is all pretty simple math, but you seem to ask for credentials for the simplest of things. I have developed equations for quantifying the hemispherical migration of redox species to a nanoscale active surface based on varying sheath diameters, active surface recession, and active surface protrusion. They're useful for determining whether your ultramicroelectrode can be considered planar (disk) or not. A widely used equation already existed for planar ultramicroelectrodes, so the point is to compare predicted currents against those of a recessed and protruded profile to validate the electrode's fabrication.
Wake up people. This probably helped like a half a dozen people. Oh, academia, you've got the charm.
This would have sufficed you are a smart guy:idunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmacky
The rest is just smoke and mirrors to me, and to be honest.... Who fuckin cares how many posts a day Idol and Meg make?? As long as they keep posting, i am a happy camper:yup:(Ok i will include you as well:D, I will PM you later to remind you ok:hug:)
I stop reading half way when you tried to tell me about Windows Symbol Map. I'm on a platform you can't deploy let alone compile and don't talk about ASCII as you have no idea what they are, as that being said lets move on. So you spent few hours trying to break down what I did in few mins and you did in hours? LOL how did you miss ROUNDED? he didn't exactly have 27k posts now did he? I was graceful and gave him that. Now the calculation of date elapsed is correct but even then its an estimate due to not knowing exact date when he register. Now please tell us how one make 0.3 posts you worthless retard. If the value already exceeded it would be rounded off to nearest post, which is the scale here. Please don't make me clown you as you don't have IQ to do the math problem I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyYou have my gratitude for breaking up my routine of correcting your language to instead correct errors in your arithmetic, or rather its attempted proof. First, I'll show you one correct approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by STHNSv3
Since these dates are close to each other, you could just start with 8 years minus 27 days, but then add 2 days because of the occurrence of leap years (Feb 2008 and Feb 2012).
8 × 365 – 27 + 2 = 2895
You could use weeks or years to accurately calculate the number of days, but to propose that you can use a multiple of months would be erroneous. Let me show you the error in the proof you tried to provide (all rounded to the nearest integer).
7 * 365 + 11 × 30 + 4 = 2889
7 * 365 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2893
7 * 365.25 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2895
The third calculation, which factors in the quarter of a day we bank each year and the average days of the month, may seem correct, but an offset of the dates or too few months would force an error. You fail to demonstrate a grasp of these nuances in your explanation. This leads me to conclude that you used a method that doesn't require any calculations on your part, but then you tried to reverse engineer with the goal of tricking an audience into believing you're capable of something that simple. It was rather transparent given the lack of critical thought.
Lastly, the conventions for division are to use a forward slash in place of the division symbol. The division symbol, ÷, can be produced using the Alt code Alt+0247. There is no standard convention for using the percent symbol for division. It has one use in programming, in which it is used to return the remainder of a quotient, but that's hardly equivalent.
Furthermore, if you divide 27,000 by 2895, that gives 9.3 (to two significant digits), which would round to 9 posts/day rather than 10 posts/day because you'll want to round down if the subsequent digit is less than 5. If you calculated 9.5, you could round that up to 10 as the nearest integer.
I started this post expressing gratitude, but I take that back. Your arithmetic is rife with errors, and I don't want to encourage you to give me more knots to comb.
This is all pretty simple math, but you seem to ask for credentials for the simplest of things. I have developed equations for quantifying the hemispherical migration of redox species to a nanoscale active surface based on varying sheath diameters, active surface recession, and active surface protrusion. They're useful for determining whether your ultramicroelectrode can be considered planar (disk) or not. A widely used equation already existed for planar ultramicroelectrodes, so the point is to compare predicted currents against those of a recessed and protruded profile to validate the electrode's fabrication.
Wake up people. This probably helped like a half a dozen people. Oh, academia, you've got the charm.
x^4 - 2 sq3 x^2 + 4 = 0
Here is something however you can find using alg2/cal/trig2. Let me know when you know what type of problem that even is... hint: 4DE.
That was comedicly brilliant and being brilliant, obviously SPCFv5 then missed the entire point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmackyYou have my gratitude for breaking up my routine of correcting your language to instead correct errors in your arithmetic, or rather its attempted proof. First, I'll show you one correct approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by STHNSv3
Since these dates are close to each other, you could just start with 8 years minus 27 days, but then add 2 days because of the occurrence of leap years (Feb 2008 and Feb 2012).
8 × 365 – 27 + 2 = 2895
You could use weeks or years to accurately calculate the number of days, but to propose that you can use a multiple of months would be erroneous. Let me show you the error in the proof you tried to provide (all rounded to the nearest integer).
7 * 365 + 11 × 30 + 4 = 2889
7 * 365 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2893
7 * 365.25 + 11 × 30.4 + 4 = 2895
The third calculation, which factors in the quarter of a day we bank each year and the average days of the month, may seem correct, but an offset of the dates or too few months would force an error. You fail to demonstrate a grasp of these nuances in your explanation. This leads me to conclude that you used a method that doesn't require any calculations on your part, but then you tried to reverse engineer with the goal of tricking an audience into believing you're capable of something that simple. It was rather transparent given the lack of critical thought.
Lastly, the conventions for division are to use a forward slash in place of the division symbol. The division symbol, ÷, can be produced using the Alt code Alt+0247. There is no standard convention for using the percent symbol for division. It has one use in programming, in which it is used to return the remainder of a quotient, but that's hardly equivalent.
Furthermore, if you divide 27,000 by 2895, that gives 9.3 (to two significant digits), which would round to 9 posts/day rather than 10 posts/day because you'll want to round down if the subsequent digit is less than 5. If you calculated 9.5, you could round that up to 10 as the nearest integer.
I started this post expressing gratitude, but I take that back. Your arithmetic is rife with errors, and I don't want to encourage you to give me more knots to comb.
This is all pretty simple math, but you seem to ask for credentials for the simplest of things. I have developed equations for quantifying the hemispherical migration of redox species to a nanoscale active surface based on varying sheath diameters, active surface recession, and active surface protrusion. They're useful for determining whether your ultramicroelectrode can be considered planar (disk) or not. A widely used equation already existed for planar ultramicroelectrodes, so the point is to compare predicted currents against those of a recessed and protruded profile to validate the electrode's fabrication.
Wake up people. This probably helped like a half a dozen people. Oh, academia, you've got the charm.
Big deal.My Dad drove a 50's car for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by shainaWell if you know anyone with low miles selling?? (since you know everything else)Quote:
Originally Posted by STHNSv3
This one was good enough for Bond.....
Attachment 165217
I owned and drove one of these for a while....
Attachment 165218
Always looking for a deal on vintage cars, more interesting to talk about in the lounge then running vintage servers for torrent sharing:01:
Note to STUPIDv1.Could you please change your avatar as the underlying closeted ghey symbolism is starting to freak out my dog.
Oh look guys the simpleton halfwit faggot woke up, don't "phear" it as the simpleton is totally harmless. Do you use your dog do knot and mount you for doggy? How does it feel to be so retarded you have to suck dick of other retards as I single handed dismantle you; IdiotEye, MegaBitch and MGay.Quote:
Originally Posted by IdolEyes787