From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/3826 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Arnold Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Objections pouring in. Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:15:46 -0800 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20010120111546.00b75aa0@mail.northcoast.com> References: <3.0.5.32.20010119214941.00b6b2f0@mail.northcoast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035394540 20440 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 17:35:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:35:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ntg-context@ntg.nl Original-To: Al Boggess In-Reply-To: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:3826 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:3826 Al, P.S. It would be a better problem if we set 20% to 80% and 80% to 20%. Also, if you could, can you compile these and send PS files. I need something my students can read. It would be greatly appreciated. At 10:46 AM 1/20/01 -0600, you wrote: >Dave, > >Yesterday, I sent you the maple-text >versions of the answers to 2.2 and 2.3. >These are plain ascii files which >should be readable in any editor >(you don't have to have maple on your machine). >In this e-mail, I have attached both the >maple worksheet and the exported text version >of the answers to section 2.4. >I'm working on section 2.5 this weekend >and should be able to send the answers >to this section on Monday. > >Speaking of questions on the exercises, >I'd be curious to know your opinion on >Exercise 32 on page 42 of chapter 2 >(this may actually be exercise 33 since >there appears to be two exercise 30s >in this section). I don't understand this >problem at all. There are two radioactive >isotopes and the problem states "at first, >20% of the decay comes from the one of the >isotopes. Does this mean that the other >is not decaying? I'm totally perplexed >by this problem. Evidently, the answer checking >outfit in Mass. is also perplexed since >they came up with a negative answer for time. >Any light you can shed on this one would >be appreciated. > >Al > > >On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, David Arnold wrote: > >> John, Al, >> >> My students are raising questions on the exercises. For example, section >> 2.3, exercise #1, page 50: >> >> Ken and Adrienne ask: I don't think this problem is can be solved without >> an more information. Should we assume that the vessel is at a dead stop? >> That assumption would raise some interesting questions as well. If the >> vessel is moving, are we to assume that the acceleration is in the same >> direction as the >> vessel's motion? >> >> Exercise #5, same set: >> >> Adriene asks: "Near the surface of the earth?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sec2.4.mws" > >Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\sec2.4.txt" >