Newsgroups: sci.math
From: "Robert Low" <mtx...@coventry.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Mar 2006 05:57:02 -0800
Local: Tues, Mar 28 2006 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: Probability in an infinite sample space
Han de Bruijn wrote: I'll just consider the 2-d case, where everything lies > I still feel rather uncomfortable with this comment. Because there is > some truth in it. By this I mean the way infinitesimals are _actually_ > done in i.e. physics. I have an example of this and would be glad if > someone feels like scrutinizing it. It's in the following document: > http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/jaar2006/RobertLow.PDF > The problem is in the assumption at the bottom of page 1, where it is > assumed that two angles are 90 degrees, _before_ the limit is taken, > while this can be motivated only _after_ the limit has been taken. > It seems weird, but I don't know how to arrive at the result in another in a plane. I think you're computing the light intensity at B due to a unit source at F, so that's what the following will work with. You can recover the full 3-d case by rotating about AF if you want to. Using FB=R = sqrt(d^2+r^2), and cos(alpha) = d/R, let the Then if the total flux emitted at F is 1, the flux through BD e/tan(e) * 1/2pi * d/R^2 or and in the limit as e->0, this just gives 1/2pi * d/(r^2 + d^2) for the flux density through the segment BC, I think that your approach, inasmuch as I can Check: the integral of this flux density over all values 1/2pi int_-infinity ^infinity d/(r^2+d^2)dr = 1/2pi int_ -infinity ^infnity 1/(u^2+1) du = 1/2pi (tan^{-1}(u)) _ -infinity ^infinity = 1/2pi*(pi/2 - (-pi/2)) = 1/2pi * pi = 1/2. Note that since your integral gives a value of 1 for Either that or I've entirely misinterpreted what You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||