Harman Kahlon

I'm 16 years old and as a kid I didn't really have much interest in computers so I haven't really got a good foundation. Over the last few months I've started to learn a little and so far I've gotten through html, css and javascript on codecademy.com. Web-development languages now seem okay to me but when it comes to machine code, it's very confusing.

I have bits and pieces of knowledge in C, but I don't REALLY know what I'm doing. What I want are books which will take me through the fundamentals of how computers really work. I've never had a formal class on computers so please advise accordingly.

I asked a friend and he recommended that before learning a language, I should learn more about data structures and algorithms. Which books cover these topics? Thanks!

It's a multiple choice questions and the others were A(912), A(951) and A(480). I could prove they weren't prime as the sum of their digits was divisible by 3. This one's not divisible by 2,3,5,7 or 11. :/

A uniform chain AB of mass m and length l is placed with one end A at the highest

point of a hemisphere of radius R. Referring to the top of the hemisphere as the

datum level, the potential energy of the chain is (given that l < (pi)R/2) ?

It was a multiple choice question and the correct answer was mR^2g/l( sin(l/R) - l/R ).

Could someone please derive this? Thanks.

I'm talking about the TOTAL number of bonds, not just carbon-carbon bonds, so carbon-hydrogen bonds are included in this as well. In a test that I sat for, these were the given options:

(A) 6 single, 6 double

(B) 12 single, 3 double

(C) 18 single bonds, 0 double bonds

(D) 12 double bonds, 0 single bonds

But I'm thinking it should be 9 single, 3 double bonds? Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.

We had this question in a test and I can't figure out a method to solve this. You can't just sit down and draw the thing and count 'em, and I don't know of any formula which can be applied here. All help would be appreciated. Thanks :D

The observable universe according to a satellite in space launched some years ago (I forgot the name) is about 46 billion light years in all directions. Also, the age of the universe is believed to be somewhere between 13-14 billion years ago.

What I'm asking is, did the light from the farthest stars we can see, leave those stars even before the big bang occurred? That's kind of a paradox. It has been said that space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light, thus this phenomenon can occur. But if space itself is expanding faster than the speed of light, that naturally implies that we wouldn't be able to see those stars as light wouldn't ever be able to get to earth.

Even if somehow light did get here from those stars, that would be light from a really young universe, maybe just some millions of years after the big bang. The first stars formed between 150 million to 1 billion years after the big bang. To be so bright as to be seen by us from that distance they would have to have lived at least a couple of billion years more.

Forgive me if I'm being silly or just plain stupid, but this has bugged me for a while and I'd really appreciate an answer. Thanks!