GingerAle

Guest, I understand your reasoning. I tend to think of equations like this when I see elementary posts:

\(\hspace {.1em} \lim_{\Delta t \to 0^+} \int_{\Delta t}^{T} \int_{\Omega}D(t_1,x) \frac{\phi(t_1-\Delta t,x)-\phi(t_1,x)}{(-\Delta t)} dx \,dt_1 \\ \hspace {3em} =\lim_{\Delta t \to 0^+} \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} D(t_1,x) \frac{\phi(t_1-\Delta t,x)-\phi(t_1,x)}{(-\Delta t)} \chi_{(\Delta t,T)}(t_1) dx \, dt_1 \\ \hspace {3em} = \int_{0}^{T} \! \int_{\Omega} D(t_1,x) \frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t_1}(t_1,x) dx \; dt_1 \\ \)

This is the simplified version and it easily conveys the point in basic terms. 

BTW, you mangled your mathematical presentation (Buggered it up, in case you don’t know what that means).

4 above 3 plus 4 above 5 is this:

\(3^{(4 + 5^4)} \\ = 3^{(4 + 625)} \\ = 3^{(629)}\\ = 1.28608... \times 10^{300}\)

We don’t want to send students down the wrong path. 

This question indicates you choose the “best” description is from a list.  You need to include these when you post this type of question; else, no one will know how to answer your question properly.  (Unless that person has mind reading skills, like some of us genetically enhanced chimps).

The dog speeds up   

The dog slows down   <-------This is the best description.

The dog moves with a constant speed   

The dog changes direction

There is no escape from the fact that if you want to use a machine that operates on hierarchal logic, you have to be smarter than the machine. These machines do what you tell them to do –not what you want them to do.   

You might understand this better as, “You need someone to learn you ‘puters.”

In that case, reprogram the mush in your head that you call a brain with the rote knowledge presented by Hectictar and this machine will function exactly as she describes. 

Lucky for you, the machine really doesn’t care that you are too dumb to understand why it works. 

Why would I want to do that?

If you have specific, curious questions, I may answer or not. This is finals’ week; I don’t have much time for blarney, but I will make time to roast a tasty vole, or at least devour it raw. 

A monster! You say?   Maybe something went wrong with my genetic enhancement. Maybe the Chimp Jekyll and Madame Hyde genetic sequence was inadvertently introduced. 

A similar sequence was introduced when these experiments were carried out in the K9 family. These dogs, known as Geigers after their enhancement, would sometimes become werewolves.  This usually happened when the moon was full.  To dispose of them one had to use a silver bullet blessed by a priest. 

For genetically enhanced chimps that become monsters, one must use a Magic Bullet – not the blender, mind you, but the kind that has an agent of selectivity, as proposed by DR. Paul Ehrlich.

We genetically enhanced chimps offer bananas as an apology. This is part of our social code.

Here are a few ways to indicate an angle.

The first two seem the most clear, to me.

The “\degree” command does not work in Tex, but the explicit ° sign renders properly.

\(\begin{array}{|rcl|} \hline \angle {ABC} &=& 27° \\ \measuredangle{ABC} &=& 27° \\ \stackrel {\; \frown} {ABC} &=& 27° \\ \stackrel { \hspace{.1em} \wedge} {AC} &=& 27° \\ \stackrel {\, \hspace{.1em} \frown} {AC} &=& 27° \\ \hline \end{array}\\\ \hspace{1.5em} \overset{\; \frown}{AC} = 27° \\ \)

The third and the last option look identical but use different commands. The “\overset” command does not work inside an array for some reason.

Here are the Tex commands in text form.

\begin{array}{|rcll|}

\hline

\angle {ABC} &=& 27° \\

\measuredangle{ABC} &=& 27° \\

\stackrel {\; \frown} {ABC} &=& 27° \\

\stackrel { \hspace{.1em} \wedge} {AC} &=& 27° \\

\stackrel {\, \hspace{.1em}  \frown} {AC} &=& 27° \\

\hline \end{array}\\\

\overset{\; \frown}{AC} = 27° \\