25 Nov '08 21:03>
So,..when a line is integrated the result is an area, when an area is integrated a volume is obtained, so naturally, what is obtained from the integration of a volume?π
Originally posted by sonhouseunless i am misunderstanding, a hypervolume of order n+1 is obtained when a hypervolume of order n is integrated....so it will always be a hypervolume after this point.....Like I said , I have very limited knowledge on the subject, so my assumption may be incorrect....π
And when a hypervolume is integrated?
Originally posted by joe shmoYou're quite right.
unless i am misunderstanding, a hypervolume of order n+1 is obtained when a hypervolume of order n is integrated....so it will always be a hypervolume after this point.....Like I said , I have very limited knowledge on the subject, so my assumption may be incorrect....π
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo, now when we know the correlence between meter, meter squared, meter qubed, and meter hypered...
You're quite right.
As a distance is measured in meter, m
an area is measured in meter squared, m2
a volume is measured in meter qubed, m3
and this is what we deal with in our lives.
But we can go further:
A hypervolume is measured in a hypermeter, m4
The next ones is m5, m6, and m7 etc.
but there are no proper word for it.
Try to buy a hypermeter of water and see the result. π
Originally posted by FabianFnasI will probably be wrong, but i would suspect an infinite amount more.......π
So, now when we know the correlence between meter, meter squared, meter qubed, and meter hypered...
A joke:
- Look at the sea! So much water!
- Yes indeed, and yet you only see the surface...!
Question: How much more is a qubic meter of water volume, compared with a square meter of water surface?
And, yes, there is an answer...
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat question can be answered in any number of ways.
So, now when we know the correlence between meter, meter squared, meter qubed, and meter hypered...
A joke:
- Look at the sea! So much water!
- Yes indeed, and yet you only see the surface...!
Question: How much more is a qubic meter of water volume, compared with a square meter of water surface?
And, yes, there is an answer...
Originally posted by FabianFnasso i guess my above post was incorrect
Yes there is. But perhaps we should think outside the box.
But it's not a joke problem. It is a very serious question.
Originally posted by FabianFnasQ2: "How much more is 6 compared with 2?"
Question: "How much more is a qubic meter of water volume, compared with a square meter of water surface? "
Another question that is much easier to answer, yet exactly the same type of question:
Q2: "How much more is 6 compared with 2?"
Reason how you came up with the correct answer, and bring in all intermediary steps.
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell, that is very straight forward. but the equation "how much more is the answer 6 compared with 2" could also be thought of as 2+?=6...just messing with you..I get what your sayingπ
Q2: "How much more is 6 compared with 2?"
Let's set up the equation (2) * (?) = (6).
The ? is the answer of how much 6 is compared to 2.
If we turn ? to 3 at the left, we see that (2) * (3) = (2 * 3) = (6), right?
So we see that six is three times two. Simple mathematics.
Now:
Q1: "How much more is a qubic meter of water volume, compared with ...[text shortened]... able method to that shows that E=mc2 and not E=mc3. It's called dimensionanalysis.
Originally posted by joe shmo2+?=6, yes, never thought of that...
well, that is very straight forward. but the equation "how much more is the answer 6 compared with 2" could also be thought of as 2+?=6...just messing with you..I get what your sayingπ