I’m considering buying the Ibanez RGMS8 but the more I look into it, I see people saying how the pickups are less than desirable. However, I can’t really find any replacement pickups that would fit the cavity as it’s an 8 string guitar and since it’s fanned fret, the pickups are in the shape of a parallelogram. Any ideas where to find pickups like that or a suggestion for a different guitar with similar specs would be great :)
Please I need help to know if my diagram is correct because I really want to get to solve this problem on my own.
Here is the Imgur link of my diagram
Let V be a normed vector space (over R, say) with norm ||•||. I have already proven that if ||•|| = √<• ,•> for some real inner product <•,•> then the parallelogram law
||u+v||^2 + ||u-v||^2 = 2||u||^2 + ||v||^2
holds for all pairs of u,v in V.
I'm having difficulties with the converse. Assuming the parallelogram law, and defining the map <u,v> = (1/4)(||u+v^2 - ||u-v||^2) I'm able to show that
<v,v> = ||v||^2,
<u, v+w> = <u,v> + <u,w>,
(note to 3) by showing that
3.1) <u, v+w> = 2<u/2, v> + 2<u/2, w>
3.2) <u,v> = 2<u/2, v> so 3.1) is equivalent to 3)
Now to show the last part
4.1) <nu, v> = n<u,v> for natural n and zero
4.2) <pu, v> = p<u,v> for rational p
But to show that this linearity holds for a real number, I have tried to extend the argument, and se... keep reading on reddit ➡
I'm writing proof definitions for my sister's friend to use in his summer math class.
If a quadrilateral parallelogram does not require the angles within to be right angles then,
can i conclude,
that a parallelogram does not have to be 4 sided as well?
i mean, an octagon's opposing sides are never going to intersect. Can it fairly be considered a parallelogram as well?
Does that mean that being four sided is not a requirement for a parallelogram to be qualified as true?
Thanks, I dont have direct contacct with any math teachers right now.
I feel like I'm the only person in the world that does. I don't know why but I love that quirk.
I'm having trouble understanding this question, I'm not sure what the dots between the lines mean. Help appreciated, thanks!
I have a given parallelogram and a sequence of parallelograms in the plane Z^2. Their vertices have integers coordinates. The parallelograms of the sequence get bigger and bigger in this sense: the smallest dimension goes to infinity. How can I prove that for an appropriate tessellation of the parallelograms of the sequences using copies of the given parallelogram, the number of point inside a translate of the give parallelogram that is not fully inside the parallelogram of the sequence, grows linearly with the smallest dimension ? In another way, if I want to keep just the point contained in a parallelogram fully contained in the bigger parallelogram, how many points am I throwing away?
Now before you say, "Oh the magnitude of the cross product is |a||b|sin(pheta), which is also the area of the parallelogram created by a and b", why is |a x b|=|a||b|sin(pheta)?
Now before you go into the whole proof where you take |a x b|^2 resulting in the three squared terms (from the three components to a x b) and do some clever algebraic manipulation to get:
|a|^2 |b|^2 sin^2 (theta)
then take the square root and slap a Q.E.D, I want to know why this is.
You can derive the formula for a cross product by asking what vector is orthogonal to a and b. Then you can write that as such:
Dot(a,c)==0 and Dot(b,c)==0
from here (by solving the system of linear equations) you can find that c must be <a2*b3-a3*b3, a3*b1-a1*b3, a1*b2-a2*b1>.
No where in this derivation did we ever care about what the magnitude of c is, so why does it so happen that the magnitude of c is the area of a x b? I have a hard time believing this is just a coincidence.
When you solve a system... keep reading on reddit ➡
I recently bought an old 6 inch jointer from a garage sale. It was $40 US and came with 4x36" belt sander too. I have been working on restoring it.
Its a rather old model from master wood craft company under the brand wood master multi tool. I called thr company weeks ago (before this Covid mess) and they told me they no longer make it or have any documentation and that it was a Chinese import type thing that they sold off. They did say that it's based off of or similar to a shop smith type system. If you're not familiar with that, it seems to be a tool system that had a variety of tools and add ons all bolted together a d running off a single motor. This included lathe, sander, table saw, band saw, jointer, etc. I dont know ehat happened to the reat of thr tool. I just have thr jointer and sander. I built a plywood cart to put them on.
I am to the point in the restoration process where i can begin setting up the jointer. I know that i need to make the infeed table co-plana... keep reading on reddit ➡
I thought that the base was 2 sq. units, and the height, 2 sq. units as well, all because of the "half-triangle" thingies.
Cmon Mr Dixon
*rectangle -was stoned when i wrote this
a) The diagonals of a rectangle are congruent
b) All rhombuses are parallelograms
c) In a parallelogram, the diagonals intercept at their midpoint
d) The diagonals of rhombuses are perpendicular
e) The diagonals of an isosceles trapezoid are congruent
I tried using circumferences and angle properties to prove parallelism and congruence, but I'm not convinced by my explanations. Any idea on how to work this out??
I'm designing a quilt and it includes a parallelogram. I know I can cut it in half and do HSTs instead but I'd rather not have the seam in the middle if possible.
Also, are the cutting seam allowances still 1/4" on a parallelogram? Thanks!
How to I calculate the length of the diagonal of a parallelogram? The lengths are 4,47 and 5.
B) sketch the function C) determine range and domain of the function D) if one side is 10cm, determine area of the parallelogram
So on this I’m pretty sure the conclusion is wrong. It can be a more which can have two equal and perpendicular diagonals. But all sides of a kite are not equal. If ABCD is a square there must be one more constraint.
TLDR: I want the other cheated on person in this equation to get due respect and know the truth. Man wont tell, gf doesnt feel like she needs to. I think I need it to heal. To see she is willing to do the shitty things ahead to get through this.
Basically, title and TLDR.
Thoughts? Am I being petty? Part of me thinks the shame she would feel from this would be a teaching lesson and if she cant cope with the shame of someone else knowing AND having to deal with what she did to me then she is simply ignoring it in some way. I feel the other person deserves the little amount of respect left to know the guy she is with has done this.
Part of me understands that yes, I would like to see this particular mans life crumble at the base of his mistake but also they could work through it same as me and my partner. I would want to know and frankly if you cant deal with the repercussions of cheating then dont fucking do it right?
-EDIT- The reason she doesnt want to tell the other party is... keep reading on reddit ➡