To understand the concept of nodes of a standing wave. the nodes of a standing wave are points where the displacement of the wave is zero at all times. nodes are important for matching boundary conditions, for example that the point at which a string is tied to a support has zero displacement at all times (i. e., the point of attachment does not move). consider a standing wave, where y represents the transverse displacement of a string that extends along the x direction. here is a common mathematical form for such a wave:

y(x, t) = acos(x, t)sin(wt)

where a is the maximum transverse displacement of the string (the amplitude of the wave), which is assumed to be nonzero, k is the wavenumber, w is the angular frequency of the wave, and t is time.

at which three points x1, x2 and x3 closest to x=0 but with x> 0, will the displacement of the string be zero for all times? these are the first three nodal points. express the first three nonzero nodal points as multiples of the wavelength lambda, using constants like pie . list the factors that multiply in increasing order, separated by commas.

explain and list equation for finding nodes.

28. evolution

29. environment, survive, offspring  

explanation:

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: