pamphlet_one

The equation is:

k = [s/(n+g+d)]^(1/1-x)

where x satisfies: 0 < x < 1

The answer is:

(-1/1-x) * s^(1/1-x) * (1/n+g+d)^[(2-x)/(3-x)]

I have no clue on how to get this answer though. I have tried chain rule then quotient rule, and just quotient rule, but can't get there because I'm not intelligent enough.

I'm referring to the fact that for very small values of z:

z = x/y - 1 ≈ ln x - ln y

Tell me why this relationship holds without simply stating the laws of logs. I know how to derive e, Euler's Number but I can't translate that understanding to this equation. Just a baffled economics student.

I have a learning disability so I can't tell the difference between them.

Because I was really stupid I failed every subject in my first semester (I thought I was smart enough to do second year subjects without prerequisites). The following year and a half (3 semesters) I did well, my semester GPA never went below a pass. Its quite evident that I made a big mistake in my first semester enrolments, I mean, what kind of idiot would enrol in advanced second year courses in their very first semester?

Anyway, the university refuses to wipe the semester from my academic record. I have gone to the Executive Dean and been denied. I then applied for a University Senate Appeal which was also denied. Its because I didn't satisfy lots of silly rules which of course I can't prove, e.g. a semester may only be changed if:

- exceptional circumstances warranting the change exist; and

- the change could not have been sought earlier; and

- if the change were made, academic standards would not be lowered; and

- making the change would not be unfair to another student.

However, the university has an obligation, as set out in its charter, to give student grades that represent the "true merit" of the student. I know for a fact that the semester does not represent me - it represents an arrogant and stupid kid. If you were to read my academic transcript you might even conclude that the semester is an anomaly that should be disregarded. My question is, do I have any chance in a legal battle to get my academic record changed? Its a wealthy and prestigious Australian university. Thanks for helping me if you reply, being a student I can't really afford a consultation with a solicitor.

The following excerpt is from a journal article - I don't understand how the author calculated his discount rates. How did he get 277% for a PV of $15 for $30 in 3 months time? Can anyone explain this.

"when evaluating a lottery, people required $30

rather than $15 to wait for 3 months (a discount rate of

277%); however, the same people required only $60 to wait

for 1 year (a discount rate of 139%) and $100 to wait for 3

years (a discount rate of 63%"

I have a few questions about fighting the Taliban.

1. What is your estimate of the average distance between insurgents and US troops in gun fights?

2. How often to gun fights occur at ranges of less than 150 ft (45 m)?

3. Is it reasonable to assume nearly all US ground soldiers have seen a US troop die from a gun shot?

4. Is there a front line? Somewhere you know there will be Taliban fighters?

5. In gun fights, are US troops noticably more accurate and skilful than Taliban fighters? (I expect so)

6. Does the average gun fight occur at a distance where you can literally see Taliban fighters get hit and die?

Most videos I have seen fail to capture the essence of the gun fighting in Afghanistan, as they aren't filmed from a 1st person perspective. Thanks, and much respect to those who have served.

I have no idea what steps were taken to get this expression simplified. Any help?

e^(2x) / [1 + e^(2x)] = 1 / [1 + e^-(2x)]

Basically the numerator turns into a 1 and the denominator remains the same except that the exponents turns negative, what the hell?

Please note that i should be written in subscript.

y = Σ (yi - x)²

dy/dx = -2Σ (yi - x)

Its the first part of the chain rule that is used but I can't figure out why the 2 becomes negative. This algebra is transformed from statisitcal theory - its part of the derivation of ordinary least squares.

I know this is the correct answer, but why not use the product rule on 5x * ln a? What is the correct way to differentiate this?

y = a^5x

ln y = 5x * ln a

1/y * dy/dx = 5 ln a <==== I don't understand what happened here, where'd the x go?

dy/dx = 5 ln a * y

dy/dx = 5 ln a * a^5x <==== I understand this step and the one above it.

The fraction is M/P.

How can I differentiate it by using dM and dP as notation? If someone can help it would be greatly appreciated.

I'm studying my first year of economics at an internationally recognized university. I'm majoring in quantitative analysis and, strangely, I really enjoy it. I want an entry level part-time job where I can put my knowledge to use, and gain experience in the field of economics. Because the field is so broad, I have no idea where to look for a part-time job. Do you have any ideas?

I'm studying my first year of economics at an internationally recognized university. I'm majoring in quantitative analysis and, strangely, I really enjoy it. I want an entry level part-time job where I can put my knowledge to use, and gain experience in the field of economics. Because the field is so broad, I have no idea where to look for a part-time job. Do you have any ideas?

x + 50/x = (50/8)² + 8

Can you talk me through it thanks

A society’s demand for a certain good is given as the following:

q = 10 - √p

In the same society, the supply curve for that good is parallel to the q axis at p = 9. If the price is below 9, there is no supply, but if the price is above 9, the supply is infinite (the supply is perfectly price elastic, i.e. the response to a change in the price at 9 is infinite).

a) Obtain the equilibrium in the market for this good.

b) Calculate the consumer surplus, producer surplus, and total surplus.

c) Calculate the economic and welfare effects of a production tax of $7 per unit.

I should be right for (b), and I get (c) too but don't know how to include the $7 cost. Its mainly question (a) i'm concerned about, because I end up with an equilibrium price of $100, which means q = 0, which can't be right. Any tips will be greatly appreciated!

I would go rt10e^rt

The exponent comes down to the front, but it remains rt not rt - 1 because its the exponential function. Is this correct? I have a feeling it isn't.

f (t) = P (t) e^-rt

The derivative is:

f ' (t) = P ' (t) e^-rt + P (t) (-r)e^-rt

(can be simplified)

Looked at my text book and I understand the product rule for differentiation is used, so I kind of get it. But why does it get split up between two functions of variable t, and then added? Can someone explain this to me in detail?

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/1831/gret.jpg

Since marginal revenue = 0 at optimization, I would have thought the first order condition is the price function equal to zero, yet this is unsolvable. I have no idea what to do.

10e^√t = 0

In words - 10 times e to the power of the square root of t equals zero.