×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?
2

Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
In Roark, the section regarding flat, circular plates has a statement regarding singularity function brackets.  It states:
"The singularity function brackets < > indicate that the expression contained within the brackets must be equated to zero unless r>ro, after which they are treated as any other brackets."
All of these equations have <r-ro>^0 such that if r<ro, then per the statement made in Roark, we must equate what is inside the bracket to zero.  The problem then is trying to raise zero to the power zero which by any calculator I've ever owned is nonsense.

I've always assumed what they mean is that the expression is zero.  Unfortunately that's not what they say.  What they say, if taken literally, is nonsense.

Note that if r>ro then what is contained within brackets doesn't matter since it is always raised to the zero power and it then equals 1 and the entire expression is simply something times 1.  It seems the use of these singularity function brackets is a very confusing way of presenting an if/then statement.

I wonder if I've made the correct interpretation or not.  If r<ro, should the entire variable equate to zero, and if not what should it be?

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

A very good question.

A quick google led me to the following site,
http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Singularity.html
This gives what appears to be a comprehensive definition of the "singularity function".  It includes the index as a part of the function (or, rather, of the family of functions), and specifically covers the case where the index is zero.  This suggests that your previous interpretation has been correct, and the fault lies with Roark and/or Young for giving an incomplete definition of the function.

This would seem to put the issue to bed.  However it assumes firstly that the above site is correct in its definition, and secondly that Roark/Young meant to use the same definition (even though they ended up with a definition that gives a nonsense result when the index is zero).

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
Thanks Denial.  Besides having an authoritative web site, it's also beneficial to have a consensus amoung peers who use this resource, so I'd be interested in hearing from anyone else that may use Roark on a regular basis.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

More digging for nuggets.

My copy of Roark (fifth edition I'm ashamed to admit), includes a more elaborate definition and explanation of the singularity function.  It is in chapter 7, "Beams; flexure of straight bars", near the end of article 7.1, "Straight beams elastically stressed", in a subsection titled "tabulated formulas".  Later editions of Roark have different chapter numbers at the very least, but hopefully they will contain the same paragraph somewhere.

This paragraph specifically states that <x-a>0 is the same as the "unit step function" (aka the Heaviside function).  Thus it confirms what you have been assuming, and is consistent with the web site.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Anything to the power of zero is 1, not nonsense. Basic maths.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
Thanks again Denial.  Much appreciated.

Greg, please check 0^0.  I believe the answer isn't 1.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Here is how the function is espressed in the Roark's handbook in Mathcad.

The sinularity function most often expressed in this reference is the step function. written with the bracket notation <x-a>, which is defined as having value of zero if x<a and value of unity if x>a. The indeterminate value when x=a is no cause for concern, because either it is multiplied be another function that will have a value of zero when x=a or it will pretain to a concentrated load or moment where this indeterminate condition has been accepted in exchange for the simplicity of a load at point concept.  Intergals of the step function, such as the ramp function<x-a>^1 and all others expressed as <x-a>^n, are defined as having a value of zero if x<a and the normal functional values (x-a)^n if x>a.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Kreyzig Advanced Engineering Mathematics 3rd edition section 11-7





Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Love this type of stuff,  do you have a proof you can quickly post here Greg (Way off topic I know but...)

The example I found on the net was;

2x3 = 1 x 2 x 3 = 6

2^3 = 1 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 8
 
Therefore;

2^0 = 1
and 0^0 = 1

DW

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Well, you /can/ argue that the answer is indeterminate, so there is no mathematical proof, I think. But, the practical answer, and the mathematical convention (as defined in Kreyszig), is that 0^0 is 1. The simple reason for saying this is that demonstrably for all other (?positive) real numbers x, x^0=1, even as x approaches zero. The problem with that is that (basically) loge(0) is indeterminate, so 0*loge(0) is either indeterminate or 0, depending on precedence. e^0 is 1, e^(indeterminate*0) is indeterminate.

For all practical cases zero is more 'zero like' than loge (x) is 'infinite' so the zero wins. Eat your heart out Cantor.

And that is about all the higher maths I can cope with today! I'm sure the Wolfram site has more.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
unclesyd, greg, djw, thanks for the feedback.  From your responces though it seems as if you're not familiar with the problem using Roark that I'm refering to.  Note that if 0^0 = 1 there is no point in providing singularity function brackets, there is no difference to any of the functions (G1 through G19) listed in the table.  Besides which, if one tries to enter 0^0 into any computer program you'll find it comes back with an error message.  Computers and calculators don't do 0^0.  

Ref: Roark's formulas for Stress and Strain, Seventh Edition, pg 457 - 459

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

I remember we would insist on using three representations of what we casually refer to as "zero" in mathematics: "0-" "null" "0+".

"0-" approaches true null from the negative side.
"0+" approaches true null from the positive side.
"null" is used where absolute true null is intended.

Most equations require the distinction, but presume a default condition.

As for computers, well, the truth is that there is no such thing as "zero" here. The result of a computation could be anything less than the arithemetic precision to be output as "zero".



 

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

On the math question 0^0 I have to agree with Greg. I don’t have any rigorous proof but seems right by a number of intuitive arguments:
1 - a^b is discontinuous on either side of  a=0 but continuous on both sides of b=0.  
So the pattern 0^x does not shed much light on the question but the pattern x^0 seems pretty unambiguous... always 1.
2 - Further the rules of exponentiation dictate that x^0 will be the multiplicative identity (1).
3 - I don’t see any rule suggesting 0^x must be 0.  Intuitively we think that any number of multiples of 0 must be 0.... but remember exponentiation starts counting at the multiplicative identity (1) and if the exponent is 0 you haven’t multiplied by 0 yet.

Just my two cents on the esoteric question of the day.  I don’t know anything about Roark.

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

iainuts,
can't see your point.
<r-ro>0 is simply a step function that's zero for r≤ro and 1 otherwise.
There are two reasons for using such a formulation in place of an if-then statement:
- it can be compactly written inside a formula
- it is a special case of the more general <r-ro>n that's used in other sections of the Roark.

prex

http://www.xcalcs.com
Online tools for structural design

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
Thanks for the feedback everyone.  At this point I'd like to only get responces from folks familiar with Roark and the use of the equations as given by that text.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
prex, thanks for the feedback.  What you suggested is exactly what I've been doing in the past, which agrees with what Denial has stated.  Looks like we all agree then.  

Note that this isn't exactly how the singularity function brackets are defined in Roark.  (read first post carefully)

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

The problem lies with people expecting calculators or computers to give them the an answer regardless of the mathematical theory. If the calulcator gives a syntac error then it must be wrong, so the argument goes. Surely as engineers you'd allow a safety factor and assume that 0^0 was approximately equal to 2?

corus

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

how about stepping back for a second ...

if something is raised to the zero power it is equal to 1,
then what's the point of the term in Roark ?

would it make more sense to interpret this term as a switch ...
= 1 if r>r0
= 0 if r<r0

actually this is the way i read Roark 7th ed pg 429

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

(OP)
Thanks rb1957.  I agree, what's the point of the term?  Looks like we all agree on the conclusion though.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Doesn't <r-r0> = (r-r0) for r >= r0, and zero if r<r0?

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

One must remember that the formulas used in Roark had their origin in the Log Table Days and were carried through the Slide Rule Era probably with a slight change in definition at each junction.

Here is another math forum.

http://planetmath.org/

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

<x-a>^0
it's a 1 or a 0 you multiply by, depending on the location where you're at.  read the explanation of the step function notation (pg 94 of 5th ed)

 Remember - Roark is for regular engineers designing/building real things, not mathematicians contemplating their belly-buttons winky smile

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

I believe that PanDuru correctly addresses this mathematical problem.  Most of the entries err in the assumption that "zero" is a number rather than a concept.

0^0 is mathematically treaded as indeterminate, one of the classical forms designated under L'Hospitale's Rule in Series Analysis.  These forms become typical in series expansions around singularity points in differential equations solved by the Power Series Method.

PanDuro correctly shows that approaching the singularity point from the right or left offers a notion of jump discontinuties.  As such, zero is any number becoming infinitely small, not necessary "nothingness".  Afterall is not the multiplicative inverse of zero an entity exceedingly large?  How do we quanitfy infinity, is it not just a large number?  Then zero is a concept of nothingness and not a number.

In the singularity function analysis, the bracket is treated as zero if it's contents are negative, INCLUDING values exceedingly close to zero.  Otherwise, the bracket and exponent take on their mathematical value.

Good job PanDuru.

Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

I should of clarified the second last line.  "...including values exceedingly close to zero" when approaching from the left.

Kenneth J Hueston, PEng
Principal
Sturni-Hueston Engineering Inc
Edmonton, Alberta Canada

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Well, just to give it one last kick. Mathcad, my big maths book, more thought, Scilab, and Matlab ALL agree that 0^0=1. If Roark says different then I'm afraid Roark is wrong.

Both of my calculators, and Excel, spit the dummy. There again they can't solve (-4)^(2.5) which you can do in your head.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

My comments again - nothing to do with Roark, just the philosophical question of 0^0.

Cockroach -   What is limit as x->0 of x^0?


=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

In general, a singularity is a point at which an equation, surface, etc., blows up or becomes degenerate.  

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

Just to elaborate my earlier post.
Lim x->0 of 0^x is indeterminate (depends from where you approach)
Lim x->0 of x^0 is well-defined  (it is 1)

Sorry to beat a dead horse. There is room for interpetation on the question of 0^0 and more than one right answer depending on the context.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55675.html

=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html

The Devil is definitely in the details... but I think I was basically wrong in emphasis, although 0^0 is often taken as 1, /and you can derive useful results by doing so/, there is no good proof that this is an acceptable shortcut.

From the Wolfram article:
a^0=1
for all a that are non zero
so we'd predict 0^0=1

but
0^a=0
for all a that are non zero
so we'd predict 0^0=0


That thread you've found gets off on the wrong foot. You can't divide by zero, ever , in normal maths. That is the RULE. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html


Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Roark's "Singularity Function Bracket"?

I would have thought that 0^0 doesn't equal anything. Taking logs of the expression then you get zero *(-infinity), which in my book equates to any answer you want.

corus

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources