EPTAnd multiplication tables, while not ideal, are a fairly simple way to start giving people an innate sense of what numbers mean and how to manipulate them. Of course, I agree that they also have to know why what and how to use the different operators and what they mean, but a bit of both is necessary.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 410
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
And multiplication tables, while not ideal, are a fairly simple way to start giving people an innate sense of what numbers mean and how to manipulate them. Of course, I agree that they also have to know why what and how to use the different operators and what they mean, but a bit of both is necessary. | ||
|
Yurie
12128 Posts
On March 13 2016 04:32 SoSexy wrote: If you could choose your employement for the next three years, would you rather go to: 1) London, around 1500 euro/month 2) Amsterdam, around 2200 euro/month 3) Uppsala, around 2600 euro/month ? Would also recommend Amsterdam. The case for Uppsala can be argued though, it is part of the "greater" Stockholm area and connected with local rail to the city. Benefit of a smaller city is that commute distance is shorter (though it can be hard to find living places at all in the Stockholm region). Time commuting should always be counted into the cost/loss of a job, it is time you lose that isn't paid for. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 14 2016 08:24 Yurie wrote: Would also recommend Amsterdam. The case for Uppsala can be argued though, it is part of the "greater" Stockholm area and connected with local rail to the city. Benefit of a smaller city is that commute distance is shorter (though it can be hard to find living places at all in the Stockholm region). Time commuting should always be counted into the cost/loss of a job, it is time you lose that isn't paid for. Yeah agreed. Uppsala can be an option if you don't mind a smaller city, or at least a suburb. It is dark in the winter, which can be kindof depressing. That said I know many Italians that have been fascinated by the snow in Stockholm as well. So that is a bit up to you I guess, how you weigh those things against each other. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11935 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
Check up the group leaders and your supervisors (they may coincide) track record, and hunt down and contact some of his ex-PhDs and ask them how she/he was as supervisor. A good PhDs (for further academic career) is a PhD where you get good papers out, and that is to very large extent determined by the project(s) you are handed by your supervisor, and the quality of the supervision you get. If you are sure that you'll leave research after your PhD, whatever. Industry doesn't care about your academic publications. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
On March 14 2016 14:38 Cascade wrote: Should also say that, if you even consider stay in research after your PhD, it is incredibly important to get in a good group, with a good supervisor. Check up the group leaders and your supervisors (they may coincide) track record, and hunt down and contact some of his ex-PhDs and ask them how she/he was as supervisor. A good PhDs (for further academic career) is a PhD where you get good papers out, and that is to very large extent determined by the project(s) you are handed by your supervisor, and the quality of the supervision you get. If you are sure that you'll leave research after your PhD, whatever. Industry doesn't care about your academic publications. Thanks! | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
 , can anyone explain me what does this mean? Remuneration of 8.3% end-of-year bonus and 8% holiday allowance, | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
 How do I take the derivative of a Jacobian?I'm trying to create a program to optimize a path in space by minimizing the largest torque of an arbitrary robot geometry consisting of any number of revolute and prismatic joints attached in a serial chain (in any order) in a open-loop manipulator within a given a time. My program can assign the proper coordinate system to any robot defined, and obtain the base to end effector transformation matrix. I then obtain my Jacobian J_v(q) = [dq_i/dx dq_i+1/dx ... dq_n/dx dq_i/dy dq_i+1/dy ... dq_n/dy dq_i/dz dq_i+1/dz ... dq_n/dz] I repeat a similar process process to obtain my J_w(q) Combine the two to obtain J(q) = [J_v J_w]^T And I have v = [v_x v_y v_z omega_x omega_y omega_z]^T Thus v = J(q)*q_dot Now I'm trying to obtain acceleration by differentiating the above equation. Google hasn't been much help in explaining how to do this. I'm doing this purely for my interest (I think the results I can obtain could be very powerful, I have made ideas), as an extension of a basic robotics a course I'm taking. Edit: opps, I derped hard. I meant to say Jv is distance from 0-n differentiated wrt q1 in the first column, q2 in second column etc. And x is first row, y second row, z 3rd row. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11935 Posts
If i understand correctly, you are at the point where you can get a velocity/angular velocity vector as a function of time? If that is correct, you don't really have to do any complicated vector calculations anymore, you simply have to take the d(v)/dt in each component, that should give you the acceleration and angular acceleration in each component. Since you are not taking the derivative in respect to any coordinate in the Jacobian, that should be enough. | ||
|
JoeCool
Germany2520 Posts
| ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
your question is pretty wrong thou. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States6327 Posts
On March 17 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote: what's wrong with answering a question with a question? Nothing? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 16 2016 06:27 Simberto wrote: Okay, i have a hard time following what you are doing, mostly because equations are absurdly hard to read in a forum format. I am not a 100% certain which If i understand correctly, you are at the point where you can get a velocity/angular velocity vector as a function of time? If that is correct, you don't really have to do any complicated vector calculations anymore, you simply have to take the d(v)/dt in each component, that should give you the acceleration and angular acceleration in each component. Since you are not taking the derivative in respect to any coordinate in the Jacobian, that should be enough. Agree on all notes here. Hard to read on forum. But seems like you should just do straight differentiation in each matrix element by itself, of course respecting the usual derivatives of products and whatnot the matrix is multiplied with. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:02 JimmiC wrote: How come it is generally accepted that the smartest people in the world both real (hawkings, every other famous scientist and so on) as well as fictional (cast of big bang so on) do not believe in religion yet most of the masses do? Does it not seem like basic logic to belief what our best and brightest do? The average person doesn't understand any of the science or math (or other expertises) that the best and brightest understand, so I think it's actually rather consistent. That being said, there's a negative correlation between intelligence/ education and religiosity. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On March 17 2016 12:02 JimmiC wrote: How come it is generally accepted that the smartest people in the world both real (hawkings, every other famous scientist and so on) as well as fictional (cast of big bang so on) do not believe in religion yet most of the masses do? Does it not seem like basic logic to belief what our best and brightest do? Pondering whether or not classifying "the smartest people" as only scientists and math folk is a good idea is definitely where I'd start in terms of addressing your stupid question. Additionally, belief in God or religiosity in the general sense tend to correlate with discipline more than "intelligence"; for example, religiosity is far more common among doctors than biologists. | ||
| ||
