How does this u squared substitution get me the negative four term in this equation? I need to see it to visualize it.
>>16892754Weird questions like this make me assume it's an AI LLM bot. It's just not quite human.
>>16892769Would an AI LLM bot need to be educated? It would just process it and spit out the answer.
>>16892754Get your notebook out and expand out the algebra yourself. This is the right thing to do for any math text, you shouldn't expect to be able to just read it like a novel
>>16892754>How does this u squared substitution get me the negative four term in this equation?r = u^2 + 2*m–1/(1 – (2*m)/r) = –(u^2 + 2*m)/u^2dr = 2*u*du(dr)^2 = 4*u^2*(du)^2Thus:–1/(1 – (2*m)/r)*(dr)^2 = –4*(u^2 + 2*m)*(du)^2Don't you know anything?
>>16892909I didn't know how to break up the problem and put it back together. That's for sure. I see it now.
Try using the button that describes squares
>>16892943>I didn't know"Tell it to the judge."Not everyone who takes the bait is unaware that it's bait.Scrabble posing as differential calculus posed by wolves posing as sheep.A while back, there was a Scrabble in integral calculus's clothing thread posed by a wolf in sheep's clothing.But his thread was less negative.
>>16892909>dr = 2*u*du>(dr)^2 = 4*u^2*(du)^2don't tell me physicists actually do this
>>16893237problem?see >>16883978 for the designated mathfag seething thread.
>>16893237>>16892909dr = 2*u*dud^2r = 4*u^2*(du)^2There. Happy?
>>16893924i'm not happy until i see a tensor product
>>16892770right
>>16893941I know, right?
