# Thread: Engineering 'one oh one.'

1. ## Engineering 'one oh one.'

I decided to start 'studying' engineering about two years ago on the wikipedia. man that site is awesome! the way i see it, there are different ways to approach engineering, along with new ways of doing the maths for everyone. but, let's start my 'class' with the basics of engineering - 'what is engineering?'

Engineering is when you get a machine to do things for you. think of your body as a machine and your heart as the engine, pumping blood throughout the body. you want it to pump more blood with less fuel or food taken to do so. this means that things get better all the time.

Basically, you want to observe that engineering is about energy changing forms. if kinetic energy and potential energy are understood, then there should be a solid foundation for this 'field.'

You will also learn a little bit about physics in engineering, as mass has boiling points and conductivity. the thing is that they go into such detail for the degree that you never use the things you learn about! think of it now, do you really need to know field theory to work an engine or split an atom?

I will continue after you ask specific questions, that i will be glad to answer, that is, if you have any. otherwise, i will just continue to unravel the working of the universe at a rather slow pace, step by step, okay?

2. I am experiencing Déjà vu....

....are you directly related to some dude living in Limpopo?

3. ## Engineering mathematics.

This is the easiest part! basically, you can work out your calculus by squaring the number in the brackets and subtracting itself from the total.

For trigonometry, you need to simply measure the angles, then find the ratio between them on a calculator. this can be done in four measurements and one calculation, think like a child approaching it, okay?

For functions you need to observe that;

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_%28mathematics%29
The function composition of two functions takes the output of one function as the input of a second one.

So, don't worry about [g] and [f], as they repeat themselves, and [x] equals [x]. this equation or sum means that [g] times [f] is equal to [g] times [f], multiplied by [x], yes? so, you say [g] times [f] times [x] equals your answer for the two functions.

4. Aye, who needs university if you've got Wikipedia...

@Justloadit: I am sure that you are enjoying engineering math 101

5. ## Thanks given for this post:

Brett Nortje (06-Jan-15)

6. Originally Posted by Brett Nortje

So, don't worry about [g] and [f], as they repeat themselves, and [x] equals [x]. this equation or sum means that [g] times [f] is equal to [g] times [f], multiplied by [x], yes? so, you say [g] times [f] times [x] equals your answer for the two functions.
I think you misunderstand what "function composition" means. I.e. the o between the g & f on the left. It's not like a multiply, it means you run the one function, get its result and then pass that as the input for the other function.

E.g. Say you have the following two algebraic functions:

Then:

Expands to:

Which in turn expands to:

So now when you pass an input value into the combined functions (i.e. you give a value for x) that last formula is actually calculated.

See this concept similar to a formula in Excel which takes as its input the value in another cell which has a formula of its own.

7. Actually this is one of the issues I have against the way we're taught Maths at school. The one thing which confuses some is that idea of short-hand notation for multiply. It makes for ambiguous notation - which is where your misunderstanding stems from.

There's 2 solutions to circumvent this ambiguous misrepresentation:
1. Never shorthand a multiply. So instead of writing you should always write the multiply out fully like this . But that makes for very verbose notation.
2. Use an alternative notation instead of the normal Infix notation. Something like Polish notation (also referred to as Prefix notation) would alleviate some of it including removing the need to group portions due to precedence of operators, as would Reverse Polish (postfix). Or even better would be to use something like Lambda calculus. Personally though I feel S-expressions would provide the most consistent, readable, unambiguous and comprehensive alternative.

8. Originally Posted by irneb
Actually this is one of the issues I have against the way we're taught Maths at school. The one thing which confuses some is that idea of short-hand notation for multiply. It makes for ambiguous notation - which is where your misunderstanding stems from.

There's 2 solutions to circumvent this ambiguous misrepresentation:
1. Never shorthand a multiply. So instead of writing you should always write the multiply out fully like this . But that makes for very verbose notation.
2. Use an alternative notation instead of the normal Infix notation. Something like Polish notation (also referred to as Prefix notation) would alleviate some of it including removing the need to group portions due to precedence of operators, as would Reverse Polish (postfix). Or even better would be to use something like Lambda calculus. Personally though I feel S-expressions would provide the most consistent, readable, unambiguous and comprehensive alternative.
...or you could simply say that a little knowledge when misapplied is far more dangerous than no knowledge.

9. ## Thanks given for this post:

irneb (08-Jan-15)

10. Originally Posted by irneb
I think you misunderstand what "function composition" means. I.e. the o between the g & f on the left. It's not like a multiply, it means you run the one function, get its result and then pass that as the input for the other function.

E.g. Say you have the following two algebraic functions:

Then:

Expands to:

Which in turn expands to:

So now when you pass an input value into the combined functions (i.e. you give a value for x) that last formula is actually calculated.

See this concept similar to a formula in Excel which takes as its input the value in another cell which has a formula of its own.
So, for your example, it goes to the last one once you have all the information. i guarantee you a seventh grader can do it like i explain it!

You can find x in any of those sums. i will expand on the second one, as x will remain x, then for the last one you don't need to do the part to the right of the equals sign. so;

X must be a positive number, as engineering works with things that are positive in terms of angles, seeing as how things that are built actually have a value, and, let's say that x is 3 because that is the minimum it can be to be have two subtracted from it, yes? then, you need to [1] / [27] = 0.0038 or so, yes? then, you can use logic to place the poitn somewhere on the equation where it makes sense, and, even a seventh grader can make sense of this.

Simply, you assign any value for [x] that you feel comfortable with, then you get the 'ratio,' then you adjust the point.

11. I take it you have a masters degree in K-logic.

Aye, who needs university if you've got Wikipedia...
Lol .......

Page 1 of 6 123 ... Last