Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Why is 'a' proportional to 'bc', not 'root bc'?

  1. #1 Why is 'a' proportional to 'bc', not 'root bc'? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    21
    Hey, this is getting on my nerves. I have been thinking over this very fundamental thing of Mathematics for quite a long time without finding any possible solution. Here it goes.

    Say, 'a' is proportional to 'b', and 'a' is again proportional to 'c', then we may infer a conclusion from this that 'a' is proportional to 'bc'.

    Fine! This is true indeed. Every now and then we use this conclusion in Physics. So what I want now is a mathematical proof of this assertion, which I have been trying to find with no success at all. Please help.


    J Rahman,
    Christ University,
    Bangalore, India.
    Ph. +91 8867681098
    (Visit my blog here and also find me on Facebook)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Why is 'a' proportional to 'bc', not 'root bc'? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J Rahman
    Hey, this is getting on my nerves. I have been thinking over this very fundamental thing of Mathematics for quite a long time without finding any possible solution. Here it goes.

    Say, 'a' is proportional to 'b', and 'a' is again proportional to 'c', then we may infer a conclusion from this that 'a' is proportional to 'bc'.

    Fine! This is true indeed. Every now and then we use this conclusion in Physics. So what I want now is a mathematical proof of this assertion, which I have been trying to find with no success at all. Please help.
    It is wrong.

    a is proportional to a
    a is still proportional to a

    a is NOT proportional to a^2


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    21
    No no, you dint get my point. Let me give you an example. The physicists say, F is proportional to q1q2, and F is proportional to 1/r^2, therefore F is proportional to q1q2/r^2. My question is, how do they make this combination? There are many other similar examples in Physics where they make use of this combination principle. I want the mathematical proof -- how do they derive the "conclusion" from the "given".
    J Rahman,
    Christ University,
    Bangalore, India.
    Ph. +91 8867681098
    (Visit my blog here and also find me on Facebook)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by J Rahman
    No no, you dint get my point. Let me give you an example. The physicists say, F is proportional to q1q2, and F is proportional to 1/r^2, therefore F is proportional to q1q2/r^2. My question is, how do they make this combination? There are many other similar examples in Physics where they make use of this combination principle. I want the mathematical proof -- how do they derive the "conclusion" from the "given".
    It is still wrong, for exactly the reason that I gave you.

    You are the one not getting the point.

    If F is proportional to q1q2 and proportional to 1/r*2 then even if F =constant x q1q2/r^2 it is proportional to q1q2 for r fixed or to 1/r^2 for q1q2 fixed but it is only proportional to q1q2/r^2 if that ratio is fixed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bangalore, Karnataka
    Posts
    21
    Thank you sir. Thank you very much. I am such a brainless moron. It was obvious. I am clear now. Thank you once again.
    J Rahman,
    Christ University,
    Bangalore, India.
    Ph. +91 8867681098
    (Visit my blog here and also find me on Facebook)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •