GingerAle

...the only source the plagiarism tracker tracked was my own post on this website

LOL ... I guess it is a good thing I didn’t troll your original post.  Like I said, “...you seem intelligent enough to write a competent, grade-level review that will pass a plagiarism review.” 

Why then, the existential meltdown?  

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE this is very urgent I might get in trouble for plagiarism!

PLEASE I am begging with my life!

Do you think your teacher is too dumb to know the cause for the plagiarism flag? The Wrath of Khan awaits you....

I do not think you are too good for your age; I think you are in the (lowest of the low end) range near that of an academic outlier. Outliers are usually found in groups of advanced study, like Project Arrow, AP, IB, etc. Generally, these groups range from 5% to 10% of a school’s population, with a U.S. national mean of 6%. 

Any way CU, I am totally busting your rump.  However, what I wrote when I first read your post is in fact what I thought. I scanned your analysis with two commercial plagiarism sites and my university’s proprietary system with a main focus on term, research, and thesis papers, along with commercial access.  After subtracting the Web2.0 and your cited quotes, it gave an 11%, which is trivial.  So I was convinced your fingerprints were not mixed with anyone else’s, and the DNA is 90% yours.   It wasn’t until your existential meltdown and Rom’s very funny post that I decided to troll you.  All in good humor, of course. 

As a peace offering, and because I still have copies of your original post and CoolStuffYT’s corrections, I created a contrast copy, so you can clearly see the corrections CS made.  It’s posted on the other thread. 

GA

I saw your analysis post shortly after you made it. I could tell by the third paragraph, that you most probably used a single source review and attempted to make it your own, by altering some of the syntax and word usage.  I thought about trolling you for it and warning you, if you submitted that paper, you’d likely be called on the carpet for plagiarism.

Though by no means exemplary, the syntax, word usage, and balanced sentences are indicative of a moderately skilled, marginally practiced senior high school student. It is certainly not consistent from someone who just started eighth grade.  It is also inconsistent with your writing style on this forum, even considering the top-form care you’d likely use for an assignment.  I’ve not looked for the original source you used, but it is unlikely your analysis is rephrased enough to even be considered a derivative work.   

To make such works your own, it’s necessary to inject more than half of your own DNA into the project, and the rest of the DNA should be from multiple (cited) sources, assembled and made relevant and coherent by your own analysis. This is not a quickly learned skill, and it is very rare that anyone develops these skills intrinsically.  Intrinsic basic math skills are much more common than writing skills. This is observable by asking a toddler his age. He will usually hold up three or four fingers rather than saying the word. This is because it is much easier to demonstrate visual numerical values than it is to utter abstract vocalization. 

In any case, you seem intelligent enough to write a competent, grade-level review that will pass a plagiarism review. A human review, that is –the bloody computers will always flag something as suspicious.

GA

Yep! Dooooomed!.... LMAO.....

Creating a discernable linear graph of Earth’s solar system that includes the three nearest stars is possible but not feasible.

Here’s why:

Defining an AU = 100.0mm. (An “AU” is a standard astronomical unit defining the mean distance of the Earth’s distance from the sun.)  Starting with the sun inscribed on the graphing paper as a circle of diameter 0.93mm, the point representing the Earth is 100.0mm distant from the circle representing the sun.

This is a list of the planets with distances from the graph circle representing the sun.

Mercury ---- 39.0 mm

Venus ------ 72.3 mm

Earth ------ 100.0 mm

Mars ------- 152.4 mm

Jupiter ----- 520.3 mm

Saturn ----- 953.9 mm

Uranus --- 1918.0 mm

Neptune --3006.0 mm

Pluto  ---- 3953.1 mm

At this point, the graph paper is 4 meters (that’s over 13 feet).

This is a list of the included stars with distances from the graph circle representing the Earth’s sun.

Alpha Centauri --- 27,807,882 mm

Barnard's Star ---- 37,968,455 mm

Wolf 359 --------- 49,332,253 mm

At this point, the graph paper is 50,000 meters or 50 Km (that’s over 31 statute miles).

----

From this, it’s apparent that your teacher is attempting to convey to you and the other students that distances to Earth’s nearest stars are vast, even when compared to the size of the Earth’s solar system. Creating a linear graph, where Earth’s solar system is a 1.0mm circle then the graphing paper will need to be over 12.5 meters in length.

Your project is doable using logarithmic graphing paper, and there will be sufficient room to label the planets and the stars.  (Note that this is not linear.)

GA

Probably to check and confirm your work.

Guests are notorious for posting wrong answers, errant logic, and just plain blarney and bullshit. 

There a few longtime guests who perpetually do this very thing. I call them the BBs. I can usually recognize them because they all write with quills. One of them often commands his computer to write with a quill –it never seems to run out of ink. 

GA

Your script code is incorrect.  Probably because my sample code above is incorrect. Despite checking it several times after refreshes, one of the sub-compilers eventually assimilated part of it.  Communicating the correct compiler code is a “Catch 22” That is, when I post the code script the compiler encodes (or partly encodes) it and it disappears from view. Modifying it so it presents normally and does not compile in whole or part is tricky.

All of the this presentation should remain visible indefinitely.

<span class="math-tex">\({}\)</span>

Despite being modified so it presents and does not compile, this can be copied and pasted and it will work as it is supposed to (unless it buggers up again).   You can always use the LaTeX box with {}, which is what this command does anyway.

GA

...  I have not tried it, sounds a bit convoluted.

It’s not convoluted at all. Just begin the LaTeX with “\(”and end it with “\)” and place a single instance of {} anywhere in the post (or thread) using the LeTeX box. I am not aware any functional limitations, but there may be some.

The MathJax version of LaTeX is well suited for the inline form that is mainly used on math forums.  Though on this forum, it’s the version is MathJax heII because it’s usually pasted in code form with $$ by the unenlightened, lazy, and desperate students, many of whom have been shoved into an online math class well beyond their skill level.  

The main difference is the inline LaTeX is shown in code form while in edit mode, requiring a preview to see how it displays.  For complex presentations, there would be an advantage for using the box to preview while entering the code.

I’ve noted in recent years at the university level, that math, physics, and engineering majors tend to use full LaTeX, while the other science majors mainly use the inline form. A few secondary schools teach and require the use of LaTeX for online homework. It’s usually inline LaTeX rather than the full monty that is taught.

GA

Sorry Rom, I posted the wrong termination sequence. It’s \) not /).

I edited the above posts with these corrections and improved the readability.   

GA

Here are the three examples of inline LaTeX: Rendered

\({}\)

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.

One more example where the rendered LaTeX is offset and centered.

Test for inline use of LaTeX \[\text {Quadratic Formula } x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}\] End of test.

To do this, use \[ \] (squared brackets in place of the parentheses) 

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

Edited added additional example, improved appearance.  

GA