how can i find the contingency mgt. theory?
80966
The internet:\nhttp://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_contingency_theory.html
852941
How theoretical is it- can you type in a sample problem?
289596
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory\n\nhttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
127
Don't know yet, but lots of wild theories and mathematical approaches being tried (some, via\nhttp://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/search?p=4%208%2015%2016%2023%2042):\n\nhttp://www.d.kth.se/~dicander/lost.html\n\nhttp://www.4815162342.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=3
697093
Having fun with that homework? Mgh=Mglsin(theta).
435368
I think u could visit this website for the general relativity:\n\nhttp://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/GenRelativity.html
256298
http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/group/rulet.html
301328
Homework.\n\nLook at B=A. You should find something interesting about tr(A^tA).
144776
I've listed two source for it below.\n\nGood Luck!
308117
www.4gmat.com/prep_courses/gmat_math_prep_number_theory.shtml \nquestionbank.4gmat.com\nwww.manyagroup.com/portal/modules.php?name=07m_Cat_Math
310115
This is an easy derivation. \n\nMultiplicative Principle: \nOne fundamental principle of counting is that if you have n of one type of object (N) and m of another type of object (M), then the number of ways to pair objects of type one with objects of type two with regard to order is n*m. This is argued by saying that one can first pair one of the N-type objects with all of the M type objects for m pairs, and then do the same for the remaining N type objects, giving m + m + ... + m n times, or n*m pairings. \n\nPermutations:\nSuppose you have k objects and you want to know how many ways you can order them in a line. You have k ways to choose the first object, k - 1 ways of choosing the second object, and so forth until you run out of objects. By the fundamental principles of counting, this makes the number of possible orderings k*(k - 1)*...*1 = k! which we will call P(k).\n\nCombinations:\nSuppose the number of combinations of k objects out of n objects without respect to order chosen is C(n, k). If we wanted to count order, we would multiply each combination by the number of ways it could be permuted (by the fundamental principles of counting). Let P(k) be the number of ways of ordering k objects (this is just k! = k*(k-1)*...*1 ). Thus P(k)*C(n, k) is the number of ways one could choose k people out of n people with regard to order. \nBut we can easily count this number another way. The number of possible choices for the first person is n, for the second person n-1, and so on until we reach n - k + 1. Thus, we get the equation P(k)*C(n, k) = n*(n - 1)*...*(n - k + 1) = n!/(n - k)!. Solving for C(n, k), we get C(n, k) = n!/[P(k)(n - k)!] = n!/[k!(n - k)!].
4008
the formulas are what convince me.  I've had to derive so many complicate formulas myself, and most of them, especially mechanics formulas can be proven, such as measuring a quantities, solving for a missing variable, then doing an experiment and getting the same answer.  This is too much to be a coincedence or something.  Most theories and things are developed before formulas and actual mathamatical relationships are found, then they find them and it all fits together nicely.  Even with reletivity and things with spacetime, there are a lot of concrete formulas, and once you have the satisfaction of deriving them yourself from previously proven formulas... it all clicks nicely, that's why im a physics major, curiosity about everything like this.  I guess human perception can be valid once connections start being made between things, because when ideas are incorrect, they really don't connect to other things very easily.
272822
One cool way that I have seen it derived is based on Jayne's Formalism.\n\nAssume we sample process, and measure the mean and standard devation of the samples. There are many possible distributions that will produce those exact mean and standard deviation. \n\nJayne's Formalism chooses the distribution which maximizes the entropy of the distribuiton. This is viewed mathematically as the distribution that makes the minimum number of assumptions regarding the distribution.\n\nI always thought that was kinda cool.
401395
Way to go Arbitrage!  Oh to funny guy- yeah we get that E=MC2  IS a formula- but if you really want to "get it" Check out Maxwells equations. It's a great time to be a science nerd with all this info pouring in now! Figure it out & go up one on Albert!
154380
I posted these sources earlier to someone else who was looking for math help.\n\nGood Luck!!
1110640
Do an internet search using quotes for "The Chaos Theory".  You can also find info at this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
784392
Here is what i found.  I'm not sure how right this is, but you can check it out.  Good Luck with your testing.