Supergrunch

I'm pretty sure it's to AMP for that reaction. Anyway, cyanide kills mammals by acting as a non-reversible inhibitor to the cytochrome-oxidase complex on the inner membrane of mitochondria, thus arresting the electron transport chain and stopping aerobic respiration. This means that the body is unable to synthesise enough ATP for essential muscles such as the heart, the diaphragm and the intercostal muscles to contract, and so the mammal dies.

Correctamundo... your go.

Well, yeah, but the formation of what bond in particular?

Righty ho, a biochem one. Name a process in the rough endoplasmic reticulum where ATP is converted to AMP.

Off the top of my head, the gastric vein and the mesenteric vein. Wikipedia says splenic vein, superior mesenteric vein, and left and right gastric veins. Plus apparently the inferior mesenteric vein drains into the splenic vein.

Happy birthday to the bunch o' ye!

Back in time for this birthday as well... Happy Birthday! Interesting, you are about a month off from being a year older than me...

Well happy birthday Mr. Bard... an internet cafe gives me the opporunity to give this message.

Haha, C2 should be ridiculously easy for a maths teacher. One of my maths teachers is a bit of a genius. He actually did an entire FP2 paper on the board in 5 minutes.

Well, I'll answer any questions you've got.

That's ridiculous- I could teach most people to get better than a D at maths A level. And the people getting these grades are supposed to be teaching us?

I answer maths questions because you can give a definite answer, and explain how do it as well. But feel free to give me biology or chemistry questions as well. It is, after all, these subjects that I'm going on to do at university.

Nah, I'm too conformist for that.

Hot: Finishing school for Easter yesterday. Not hot: My laptop overheating as I try to type this.

I'm also unable to think of a position for myself in our fine village. Any suggestions?

Don't worry, someone (not me) managed to do it. I just thought you might know about it because the Lorentz group is something to do with physics. Yeah, that's much better. I just work out methods for these sort of questions from scratch, so some of them (like the one I had for doing this) are probably a bit cronky.

Yeah, we all make mistakes, like I just did. It's best to correct them though, in case someone who doesn't know it already uses an incorrect formula.

Good point. I wish the maths notation on this forum was better, so that we wouldn't need to spend ages analysing and manipulating expressions. Of course, I could do my hints/solutions in open office math, but I can't really be bothered. By the way Chris, did you do FP3? I found an unstarred question (they star hard ones) in my textbook saying: Show that the Lorentz group is a group, and prove that it is Abelian. Obviously they explained what the Lorentz group was, but even so...

What was the original question? It can't expect you to do something that it hasn't told you to do. First, you must make an assumption about the probabilities of taking a bead. If you are assuming that these probabilities are distributed exactly as the data suggests, and that the probabilities are independent (assuming that taking out beads does not affect the number of beads in the bag), then the probabilities will be as follows: Probability(yellow) = Pr(yellow) 48/200 = 0.24 Pr(blue) = 64/200 = 0.32 Pr(green) = 88/200 = 0.44 If this is the case, then the probability of drawing out a green bead, followed by drawing out a blue bead is 0.32*0.44 = 0.1408 Note that I'm not 100% certain about this. Correction: x = ((-b +or- (b²-4ac))/2a

Yep, if you want those question marks to be integers, then that question can't be done. You can still solve the equation though, by using the formula- it does have real solutions.

Belated birthday congratulations are due to you. Therefore: Happy belated birthday!

We are starting with 175000, so this is 100%. So lets work out 1%, by dividing 175000 by 100. (= 1750) Now, we need to know the number of "percents" in 215000. We know that if we divide it by this number, we will get 1%. Thus: 1750 = 215000/x (where x is the number of "percents" in 215) Rearrange for x: x = 215000/1750 x = 122.9 (1dp) So 215 is 122.9 percent of 175, to one decimal place. Thus the percentage increase from 175000 to 215000 is 22.9% (1dp) In fact, this is the same as the percentage increase from 175 to 215, so if you are sure of this you can remove the zeroes to make calculations easier. You must have written this down wrong- the equation doesn't factorise.

Frankly, I think they should be teaching them calculus. (not being sarcastic)

Yeah, and everyone should use vulgar fractions. Why do they even teach things like 4 and 2/3, when you can say 14/3? Yes, me too. I've finished double maths A-level now, but I'll have some more maths to do at university.

0.026060606060... = 0.02 + 0.0060606060... = 2/100 + 0.01(0.60606060...) So lets deal with the 0.60606060... 0.60606060... = x 100x = 60.60606060... 99x = 60 x = 60/99 = 20/33 Thus: 0.026060606060... = 2/100 + 0.01(20/33) = (2 + 20/33)/100 = (86/33)/100 = 86/3300 = 43/1650 Wow, never had to do that before.