Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- From: Han de Bruijn <Han.deBruijn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:54:57 +0200
cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The day I was asked to "prove" that the period of a pendulum was
independent of the angle of deflection, was the day I realized I was
more of a mathematician than a physicist.
It has cost me six years at the university to find out that I'm more of
a physicist than a mathematician. But apart from that, the period of a
pendulum is only approximately independent of the angle of deflection.
Your whole problem is in the appreciation of "approximately". Such lack
of absolute precision is quite characteristic for the "exact" sciences,
though, as you clearly have experienced yourself. It's even worse if one
studies Electronics. I still find it unbelievable that, after all those
"this can be neglected" manipulations there is some formula left, which
is useful after all.
Han de Bruijn
.
- References:
- Probability in an infinite sample space
- From: mikeh106@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- From: Virgil
- Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- From: cbrown
- Probability in an infinite sample space
- Prev by Date: Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- Next by Date: Re: The mathematical description of motion a difficulty?
- Previous by thread: Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
- Next by thread: Choosing a matrix library for image processing. Blitz++,MTL or others?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|