I just found out a way to find relationships between objects

[K.I.L.E.R]

When you are trying to find 2 different equations that represent different things but have a related variable within a certain context, you can equate them and solve for that specific variable.

y = ax + c = (1-a)x + aC
a = -(c-x)/(2x)

I don't know what this does but it works for other things.
What are the limitations of this method?

EDIT:
It just hit me. I'm looking for the gradient.

 

[Npl]

youre intersecting lines ?
Formally if you have 2 functions f1(x), f2(x) and you set f1(x)=f2(x), thats the same thing as f1(x)-f2(x) = 0.
Dependent on the left side you can get no, 1 or multiple solutions. Incase the left side turns out to be linear(ie. lines in 1 dimensional case), you can get either 1 solution or x=R. EDIT: Well, you can get no solution if they are parrallel.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I'm just struggling to get the basics of math.
I want to be good at it but I seem to constantly do weird things and get confused all the time.
I want to be independent of formulas when doing math.

I want to be able to put things together myself.

 

[Nesh]

is it me or there is something wrong in that equation?

 

[Npl]

I'm just struggling to get the basics of math.
I want to be good at it but I seem to constantly do weird things and get confused all the time.
I want to be independent of formulas when doing math.

I want to be able to put things together myself.

Err, how about taking a book about "linear algebra" and reading up linear equation systems ? Seriously, if you have specific questions, ask, but for deeper knowledge you have to work yourself
Anything non-linear is more complicated, but you can generally add together 2 equations and replace one with the result (usually to kill some coefficients). You always need to keep the system together and not view them as independend. Once you killed enough coefficients to be able to solve one equation you then use the results to solve others in the system
eg.

The eq.system
1: f(x) = a
2: g(x) = b

can be replaced by another system
1: f(x) = a
2new: k*f(x) + l*g(x) = k*a + l*b, where l MUST BE != 0 - else you are taking eq 2 out of the system

This rule is enough for solving any linear eq system ( only constants and factors of x - not x*x or anything else), where x could be a vector x1,...,xn. In fact the gaussian algorithm uses nothing more than this rule.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

I know how to work stuff out with a little error, which can be ironed out by me in a few tries.

The problem is that books and the like introduce concepts without showing you what's going on.

It's like:

Here is a formula *drop formula down and don't explain anything else*
Now onto topic 2...

I have a book on mathematical engineering and I am doing an advanced maths subject which does things like fourier analysis and I have no issues in the class or otherwise.
The problem is I want to be able to set up mathematical models and solve my problems by myself.
Books do crap all in that department.

I fix up my confusion by doing proofs myself.
I hate being given an equation and someone telling me to take it as it is and don't ask questions.

 

[Npl]

I cant recommend you books, as you would have problems reading german I guess ( I wouldnt know a good one for Lin-Algebra anyway). The books/scripts I got rather go this way: show the definitions, explain the prerequisites and motivation - often enough the formulas are left to be gained yourself from included exercises (you get guided to its uses and limits by that way).

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

is it me or there is something wrong in that equation?

It's not just you.

For the case where the two lines are equivalent,
y = ax + c = (1-a)x + aC

ax + c = (1 - a)x + aC
ax + c = x - ax + aC
2ax - aC = x - c
a(2x - C) = x - c
a = (x - c) / (2x - C)

How the second "C" disappeared from his results, I don't know, but at least that was the only error in his result.

The problem is that books and the like introduce concepts without showing you what's going on.

It's like:

Here is a formula *drop formula down and don't explain anything else*
Now onto topic 2...

Understandably so. That's pretty much the way education works. It's so dependent on memorization and regurgitation of how things carry out rather than why. That's the way it is because it's easier to teach that way for one, and because it dates back to an era before the internet and forums or even the ability to print books cheaply, so memorization from a teacher was the only way things could be passed on.

 

[Nesh]

It's not just you.

For the case where the two lines are equivalent,
y = ax + c = (1-a)x + aC

ax + c = (1 - a)x + aC
ax + c = x - ax + aC
2ax - aC = x - c
a(2x - C) = x - c
a = (x - c) / (2x - C)

Phew thank God. For a moment I thought I had a problem with my math