I was reading about strain rate tensors and other kinematic properties of fluids that can be obtained if we know the velocity field V = (u, v, w). It got me wondering if I can sketch streamlines if I have the strain rate tensor with me to start with. Let's say I have the strain rate tensor...
Thanks a lot for the information, fresh_42. I'll try to look up lecture notes that are made available online. I think that's the easier way to learn too.
Yes, I agree it's a rather broad question. Sorry about that.
I would actually like to learn about singularities in a strict mathematical sense. So, if I have to learn about convolution, singularity and kernels in particular where should I start looking?
I did google about them a bit, found some...
I'm reading a book on vortex methods and I came across the above mentioned terms, however, I don't understand what they mean in mathematical terms. The book seems to be quite valuable with its content and therefore I would like to understand what the author is trying to say using the above...
I have the expression, A(Bx + 1) = C*d^(2x) where A,B,C and d are constants. How to arrive at an expression for x in terms of A,B,C and d?
I have tried doing this:
Log [A(Bx + 1)/C] = Log [d^(2x)]
2xLog(d) = Log[A(Bx + 1)/C]
but I'm unable to arrive at an explicit expression of x in terms...
While reading a text book on viscous flows, I came across the following interpretation of an equation:
where, v is the vertical component of the free stream velocity and y is the vertical distance from the surface of a solid and Re is the reynolds number.
Can someone please help me...
I was reading about the tangent vector at a point on a curve.
It is formulated as r' = Lim Δt→0 [r(t+Δt) - r(t)] / Δt (sorry for the misrepresentation of the 'Lim Δt→0 ')
where r(t) is a position vector to the curve and t is a parameter and r' is the derivative of r(t).
All I can...
Post #2 helped me understand the negative reciprocal rule for perpendicularity.
Post #11 helped me understand the negative reciprocal rule for perpendicularity being applicable, in context of post #10, only after A.B=0 being valid.
The combination of both posts helped me understand everything...
I think the above quoted message is misleading here.
My question would have been as follows:
Is it OK to say that A is perpendicular to ax+by=0 because A is perpendicular to B?