dag32

iTrader: (112)

Here is my C11 it's for sale if anyone is interested.

http://www.rctech.net/forum/r-c-item...ml#post5985175

HeliYogi

iTrader: (17)

Vyger are you running it yet? Lapp times? F103R VS F104 Pro?

I hope the F104 turns out to be a good thing.

There were two F104 last weekend at the TCS in Aliso Viejo CA
My first race, finish a spectacular last place! But thanks to a couple of guys that took me under their wing had a blast. The car was fast, the pilot numb

Look at the nice F1 turn out! The Castrol piloted by Christian won first place congrats!

240Z

iTrader: (6)

FYI, you may have been last place place in the main, but that is only because the losers who were running slower than you quit. It was good to see you stick it out.

Vyger

iTrader: (2)

Hey Yogi! It's nice to see you made it over to Tamiya for the race. They ussually run a good show. You'll have to run in the TCS Nats in August, that's really fun.

Not yet. I still have to wire up the ESC, paint the body and glue the tires. Trying to find tire glue has been a challenge all in itself. It looks like my wife has plans for me for the next couple of Saturdays so I'm at least three weeks out before I can get the car on the track. I'm really looking forward to running it. It's been a long time since I've been this excited about running a car again.

I'll post up some pics of the chassis this week. I've made some changes to it since the last post. I went for performance instead of bling and I got all the Tamiya hop-ups on the car. They're really nice parts.

PhatPat

iTrader: (5)

The TRG109 looks like a over complicated design.



but it looks good on the track

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA7p0vuSp0s

HeliYogi

iTrader: (17)

Hey 240Z,
Thanks for your comment’s, I hope those guys were ok. It would have been a good learning experience to run amongst us “slower duds” I was a little surprise for the no show. I hope they had fun.

Waiting for the F104 Vyger - report

Cheers!

liljohn1064

iTrader: (17)

Link type rear end, no T bar, damper tubes. Front looks a lot like the F104 front end. Looks really adjustable. It appears narrow enough to run witht he F104 body. Some quality competition. Lets hope they get enough interest to keep the kit on the market.

madjack

iTrader: (28)

yes, yes, very pretty... but will it ever see the track?

Vyger

iTrader: (2)

WHAT??? Why you gotta be like that man. I thought we were friends?

Yes, this car will be a runner. I'm not sure how well it will run, but a runner nun the less. Did you get one yet? Have you built it? Are you going to bring it out and teach me a lesson? I'm still trying to talk DB into making a return. Wouldn't that be a site!

madjack

iTrader: (28)

A V & DB siting would be a grand thing indeed

As for a lesson... what topic? plasma physics, thermodynamics, bacterial physiology, organic chemistry, mammalian physiology.... still investigating the physics of sniping? Or we can stick to RC


Give me a heads-up so I can attend!

Vyger

iTrader: (2)

Lets start with the basics; I've been working on a problem in Number Theory off and on for almost ten years called "the Collatz Conjecture" aka "the 3X + 1 problem". Let f(x) be a function defined on the positive integers such that:

f(x) = x/2 if x is even
f(x) = (3*x+1)/2 if x is odd

Then the conjecture is: iterates of f(x) will eventually reach 1 for any
initial value of x. Is this right? Let me know what you think, I'm sort of stumped.

madjack

iTrader: (28)

Ahh yes, HOTPO. I think it's ok to be stumped Vyger.

The Collatz conjecture is an unsolved conjecture in mathematics. If memory serves, it is named after Lothar Collatz, who first proposed it in 1937. The conjecture is also known as the 3n + 1 conjecture, as the Ulam conjecture (after Stanislaw Ulam), or as the Syracuse problem; the sequence of numbers involved is referred to as the hailstone sequence or hailstone numbers, or as wondrous numbers.

They take any whole number n greater than 0. If n is even, they halve it (n/2), else they do "triple plus one" and get 3n+1. The conjecture is that for all numbers this process converges to 1. Hence it has been called "Half Or Triple Plus One", sometimes called HOTPO.

Paul Erdős said about the Collatz conjecture: "Mathematics is not yet ready for such confusing, troubling, and hard problems."

In 2006, researchers Kurtz and Simon, building on earlier work by J.H. Conway in the 1970s, wrote that a natural generalization of the Collatz problem is recursively undecidable.

But, feel free to keep working on it if you would like...

Vyger

iTrader: (2)

Madjack, you are the man! OMG! That was great. Thank you so much for your insight. But you have to know that Conways theory was full of holes. Kurtz and Simon filled them in with assumptions. Of course this is my opinion and that's why I need to prove/solve it.

I'd love to talk with you more about some of these problems, like the Riemann Hypothesis. But for now can you help me with this one? It's an invariant subspace problem sometimes known as invariant subspace conjecture. It's part of my homework assignment. I can't figure out if this is a true statment or not.

Given a complex Hilbert space H of dimension > 1 and a bounded linear operator T : H → H, then H has a non-trivial closed T-invariant subspace, i.e. there exists a closed linear subspace W of H which is different from {0} and H such that T(W) ⊆ W.

madjack

iTrader: (28)

Vyger, while the general case of the invariant subspace problem is still open, several special cases have been settled:

The conjecture is true for finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces as every operator has an eigenvector.
The conjecture is true if the Hilbert space H is not separable (i.e. if it has an uncountable orthonormal basis). In fact, if x is a non-zero vector in H, the norm closure of the vector space generated by the infinite sequence {T n(x) : n ≥ 0} is separable and hence a proper subspace and also invariant.
The spectral theorem shows that all normal operators admit invariant subspaces.
Aronszajn & Smith (1954) proved that every compact operator on any Banach space of dimension at least 2 has an invariant subspace. The case of compact operators on Hilbert spaces had been done earlier by von Neumann.
Bernstein & Robinson (1966) proved using nonstandard analysis that if the operator T on a Hilbert space is polynomially compact (in other words P(T) is compact for some non-zero polynomial P) then T has an invariant subspace. Their proof uses the original idea of embedding the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space in a non-standard finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Halmos (1966), after having seen Robinson's preprint, eliminated the non-standard analysis from it and provided a shorter proof in the same issue of the same journal.
Lomonosov (1973) gave a very short proof using the Schauder fixed point theorem that if the operator T on a Banach space commutes with a non-zero compact operator then T has a non-trivial invariant subspace. This includes the case of polynomially compact operators because an operator commutes with any polynomial in itself. More generally, he showed that if S commutes with a non-scalar operator T that commutes with a non-zero compact operator, then S has an invariant subspace.

Hope this helps

robk

iTrader: (22)

Uhhh, I was told there would be no math