Testwiki:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2011 August 28

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Mathematics desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < August 27 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Jul | August | Sep >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current desk > |}

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 28

Kernel of a transformation on the set of polynomials

Given integers $n,m\ge 1$ Let $x_1,...,x_n$ be distinct points in $ℝ$ and ${\mathbb{P}}_m$ denote the set of polynomials of degree at most $m$. Define a transformation $T:{\mathbb{P}}_m\to {ℝ}^n$ by $T(f)=\left[\begin{array}{c}f(x_1)\\ ⋮\\ f(x_n)\end{array}\right]$ where $f\in {\mathbb{P}}_m$. What is the dimension of the kernel of T?

The case m<n is trivial. Otherwise any such polynomial in the kernel of T can be written as $a(\prod _{i=1}^n(x-x_i))(\prod _{i=n+1}^m(x-c_i))$ where $c_i\in ℂ,a\in ℝ$ are arbitrary (free?) variables. Is it sufficient to claim that the answer is $m-n+1$ because that is the number of free variables, or do I need to show something more (like find a basis for the kernel) ? Widener (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You know the dimension of the image from the question on Aug. 21. Use dim(ker)+dim(im)=dim(domain).--RDBury (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that, but I would like to know if it can be done without knowing dim(im) beforehand. Widener (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You've more or less already answered your own question: any polynomial in the kernel can be written (uniquely) as $(\prod _{i=1}^n(x-x_i))p(x)$ for some $p\in P_{m-n}$. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Partial Derivative of Volume of Cone

Hello. Why is the partial derivative of the volume of a cone not its surface area unlike the ball (solid sphere)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason it works for a ball is that a small change in radius radius results in an shell with uniform thickness; it has approximately the same volume as area times the thickness. That reasoning fails for a cone. It also depends on the how you measure the size of the sphere. For example the formulas for area and volume in terms of diameter are V=1/6 π d³ and A = π d²; the derivative is off by a factor of 2 in that case. There are reasons that the derivative of volume formula is the area formula for a sphere, but it's kind of a one-off.--RDBury (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Even if you maintain the height-to-radius ratio? --Mayfare (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ask yourself how the height $H$ and the radius $R$ vary if you increase the thickness of the cone by $x$ units. Reasoning from the triangular cross-section may help. I get $H(x)=H+x+x\sqrt{\frac{H^2}{R^2}+1}$ and $R(x)=\frac{R}{H}H(x)$. Plug $H(x)$ and $R(x)$ into the formula for the volume of a cone, differentiate with respect to $x$, and evaluate at $x=0$. You should get the formula for the area. 98.248.42.252 (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Cone terminology

There are four different things I think of as a "cone":

1) What most people call a "cone", that is, the portion trimmed between a plane and a vertex point.

2) A "semi-infinite cone", trimmed only to the vertex point.

3) An "infinite cone", with two lobes, unbounded at both ends.

4) A "conic frustrum", with a single lobe trimmed at both ends by planes.

So, am I using the proper terminology to describe these ? Is there a way to specify the first one that makes it clear I'm not talking about the others ? StuRat (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See the disambiguation page cone. Those aren't too different and are only a small subset of its meanings. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the word is frustum—there's only one R. —Bkell (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, you can have cones of any dimension. A very nice class of cones are given by the zero sets of non-degenerate homogeneous polynomials (of any degree, and in any number of variables). Although it can sometimes easier to think of them over C instead of R. For example, the set of points Template:Nowrap in R⁴ such that Template:Nowrap is a cone, whose x₄–constant hyperplane sections give spheres. (Note that Template:Nowrap gives a sphere or radius zero.) You can, of course, construct much more exotic examples. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's going a bit off track on this one. If I say "cone" to an average person (not a mathematician), there's no question about it being a 3D cone (versus other dimensions or any of the other things listed on the disamb page). There is, however, the question of it being infinite or finite. That's what I need terms for. Is there no shorter term for a "3D, finite, right, circular cone" ? StuRat (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that the word "cone", in ordinary non-mathematical usage, is confusing because it may refer to an infinite cone? I cannot imagine a non-mathematician hearing the word "cone" in a non-mathematical context and getting the impression of an infinite cone. Infinite objects do not arise in non-mathematical contexts. In ordinary usage, the word "cone" means "a solid or hollow object that tapers from a circular or roughly circular base to a point" (New Oxford American Dictionary). That description cannot possibly refer to an infinite cone, which has no base. Now, I don't know of a single word for the very precise concept of a "three-dimensional finite right circular cone", but you could probably remove the word "finite" from that description, since the concept of a "right circular cone" really makes sense only in the finite case. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Romanian math

I noticed that in several international math journals, a disproportionally large number of problems were submitted by Romanians. Why is this? Are Romanians naturally better at math or something? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No they're terrible at maths and can't solve any problems so they're trying to get other people to help them ;-) They've done a lot of fine maths over the years. Also mathematics has a good public reputation there, the original maths olympiad was held by Romania for instance. Dmcq (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You find that a lot of the old Eastern Block countries are the same. They weren't touched by commercialism like the West was. Things like a good education still come before being popular and famous. In the West, being clever isn't cool. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A question about $\zeta (0)$

I know that when evaluated this produces $-\frac{1}{2}$

I'm not quite sure why this is the answer, but I was wondering if there was any significance of this being -.5 and whether or not there are any other values z such that $\zeta (z)=-\frac{1}{2}$ And if there were, what the significance of THAT would be. As you can probably tell, I'm new to this function :-) Aacehm (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have literally no idea how the function works, but I do know a website that does. WolframAlpha thinks there are many more solutions z<-15. They aren't integers or anything like that, I guess if they are something special it would take more than me to recognise it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• The article 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + … is what you're looking for. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)