Math Is Fun Forum

Hello, just with a rough sketch I think

Hi; The second formula is correct; there are no radians here, only degrees.

The formula you want is

Whoever told you the first formula must have just been confused about their units. If you use radians you get crazy answers like minus 1400kg.

Edit: I have checked that this same formula works for all the other angles you mentioned and answers you expect, except I think that 60 degrees should be 1500kg (1250kg is at about 73 degrees). Remember, all angles are in degrees - we are not working with radians!

Just plug the angle you want into this formula, where the angle is x:

Or:

As you have it:

They will all do the trick.
I hope that's clearer (:

Lol, well since we're redoing the question daily:

Hi - can you explain it? I am still not sure what is allowed.

Edit: So more than one topping can be repeated, but no topping can be repeated more than once? I will think on it and see if I get anywhere at all (:

I am not sure either. It occurs to me that the "maximum one common topping" means that all of the ice cream cones must have unique toppings, except for one topping which may appear on several cones. But then the problem is simple; the answer is merely four cones with at least three sharing a topping (one topping unused if they all share one), and I don't think this is right.

Can anyone elaborate on the last condition or illustrate it with an example?

Calligar,

Hahaha, you have basically made a duplicate of the first paragraph of post #3 Post #4 is a good response to this query - in short, you (and I) are right!

It looks like nobody noticed, but in post #1657, bobbym added 9, not 99.
Just to keep everything easy to track, I will bring it back up to this post:
1657*99 = 164,043
1658*99 = 164,142
1659*99 = 164,241
1660*99 = 164,340

1661*99 = 164,439

I've got it. Unexpected and fun! (:

Hi;

Hi! Another nice conceptual problem, ganesh (:

Hi!
You will find a lot of interesting and creative (if often flawed) perspectives on forums devoted to philosophy. They seem to attract cranks at least as much as they do academics. Infinity is a staple, as well as nothingness, and infinity as it relates to space and time is often pondered. It is not that the relative sizes of objects are doubted; it is simply that it can be difficult to conceptualise how objects can have relative sizes in an infinite universe. I think it has to do with the idea that infinity cannot be divided into finite parts. I suppose that I do not find it so absolutely brain-bending, but it is interesting to think about if you get why it puzzles people.

Hm... I know you said that it is one of the great mysteries of existence, but unfortunately I am struggling to see what is so mysterious (with no intention of being infuriating!). It might be true that the universe as a whole is never in the same state twice, but links can be made between localised events and processes. Why should it be a mystery that we predict that a lot of coin tosses will show heads close to 50% of the time? Is all of our data only memory? :S

Your final comments about thinking remind me a lot of what I know of Immanuel Kant. He wrote a lot about how things-in-themselves are unknowable and we only experience what our concepts allow us to. In particular, he said that space, time, cause and effect are merely human constructs, without which we could not have experiences.
As for Vedic seers... they confuse my small and literal mind xD

Regarding your paradox, I honestly never thought of it like that before. I always assumed Conclusion 2 without giving Conclusion 1 a thought. This seems to me to be no semi-paradox. I will definitely think on it.

Hello!

I just thought I'd drop in and mention that your recursive formula, bob, and your explicit one, bobbym, predict exactly the same sums for S72, S100, S80, etc. It's not exactly a proof, but I am one who thinks that extremely conclusive confirmation is often practically indistinguishable from proof. I hereby declare this problem solved