GingerAle

^{(Updated and corrected post)}

Yes, there is a delimited code sequence to activate LaTeX for inline presentations.

The sequence is “\(” (backslash -open parenthesis –no quotes) to start the LaTex  and  “\)”  (backslash -close parenthesis –no quotes) to terminate and return to ascii mode.

There is one additional requirement to confirm the rendering the LaTeX:

Somewhere (anywhere) in the post must be this (compiler) command:

<span class="math-tex">\({}\) span>  

Or

Open a LaTeX box and type  {} < --- this is the easy way.

Note that these commands are functionally equivalent. They use a null character, becoming (and remaining) invisible after the first preview when returning to edit mode. 

Additional Notes:

 If the post already contains one or more standard LaTeX boxes then this is not necessary.  Without this command, the display will not render the LaTeX code. With this command, it always works, if the system is functioning normally.   

Here are three examples of inline LaTeX presented unrendered, in ASCII format:

Standard writing in ascii followed by LaTeX equation:  \(4*(\frac{1}{2}x)+x=432 \); followed by more ascii text.

Standard writing in ascii followed by LaTeX equation (inside parentheses) in LaTeX:  \((4*(\frac{1}{2}x)+x=432)\);  followed by more ascii text.

Standard writing in ascii followed by LaTeX equation (inside parentheses) with text in LaTeX:  \((4*(\frac{1}{2}x)+x=432) \text { text in LaTeX }\);  followed by more ascii text.

----------------

The examples coded in this post have hidden modifications to prevent rendering the LaTeX. The examples show just the ascii code for the LaTeX.  The post below does not have these modifications, so it will render the LaTeX in inline mode.

--------------------------

 ^{Edits: Error correction, improved readability and coherency, and modified the examples to display the exact LaTeX code instead of rendering.}

GA

^{... UNfortunately....we get a lot of folks posting stuf which is UNclear!   Parentheses and brackets are NECESSARY to get correct answers to postings (and not make an engineering mistake that kills people !)}

^------

I agree that the postings from many students are unclear. It’s obvious these students lack the prerequisites for the posted questions; including an understanding of basic mathematical hierarchical conventions. Without these prerequisites, they will not understand where to place parenthetical operators, or they believe them to be unnecessary even when included in the original question.

These deficits point to an apparent flaw in lower-level education of students for these hierarchical conventions. Based on my observations, the debate on these conventions are usually by second-year college/university students and reaches a crescendo every other year. It may be because the crescendo carries over to first year students, that when they become second-year students it’s mostly a moot point and last year’s news. 

As for engineers, especially those who have the credentials and experience to create or certify anything that might cause death to a population, or the destruction of expensive science experiments, it’s reasonable to assume they are well versed on such hierarchies. In addition, all mathematics and algorithms are peer reviewed and subjected to tests to catch transient math and logic errors.  This process works well, as indicated by the rare failure. Most failures, when they occur, are usually traceable to a sequence of errors where no single event by itself would have caused the failure.

In modern computing, redundant uses of parenthetical operators are a trivial matter, but in the early days of computerized control, mnemonic and variable storage space was always at a premium and maxed-out, so superfluous parenthetical operators were not an option. 

The article below gives insight to the computer related testing and contingency plans in use for the Apollo 11 moon landing.

This debate seems perpetual. The issue returns at least once every school year.

To answer question (1), we need to know the distance to the target car when the super car boosts.

Because the acceleration is increasing as a percentage of its instantaneous speed, calculating the elapsed time requires both differential and integration functions to solve. But ...

...To give you an idea how fast this super car is accelerating, it will reach

\(200*(2.2)^{19} \text { MPH } \approx 0.956 \text {...c}\\\)

95.6% of the speed of light in 19 seconds.  So, unless the criminal car is very far away, it won’t take long to catch up to it.  

GA

I was taught, and I believe it is proper, that when the decimal fraction is exactly .5 then if the number preceding it is odd it rounds up, and if the number preceding it is even it rounds down. 

Good for you. You were taught correctly.  The rounding method you describe is still used in statistical analysis. 

The floor function for odd numbers and the ceiling function for even numbers that are followed by an exact value of (5) are used to process collected data to prevent rounding bias for statistical analysis, and other data processing reasons. One notable exception is the data used for interest payouts for financial instruments, such as dividends on stocks, bank accounts, etc.  An ending “5” will always use the ceiling function regardless if the preceding number is even or odd. The reasons for this exception are interesting. 

This however is a type of Diophantine question –meaning that it requires integers for solutions. Though derived from a statistical perspective, the nature of the question presented is minimally statistical, and the data used to solve it is not statistical –the variables are not random. The writer of the question included a parenthetical statement to clarify the exception for this question.

GA

I thought it strange that all these angles should be vertical. Logically, half should be “horizontal” angles.

Below is an image excerpt from Methods for Euclidean Geometry –37^th Ed.  (Copyright 2010)

The text above the theorem [seems to] indicate[s] all the angles are vertical.

The theorem itself indicates only two are vertical.  It doesn’t indentify the other angles, only that they are also congruent. 

Next time, I’ll divide by 2. 

GA

Solution: 

When two (2) distinct lines intersect, four (4) vertical angles are formed.

For five lines:

The first line forms 4 angles with each of the four other lines.  4(4) = 16

The second line forms 4 angles with each of the three other lines.  3(4) = 12

The third line forms 4 angles with each of the two other lines.  2(4) = 8

The fourth line forms 4 angles with the remaining line.  1(4)  = 4

There are 16 + 12 + 8 + 4 = 40 vertical angles.

GA

An Amazing and Very COOL Presentation, Heureka!