You are not logged in.
Thanks for the responses. I was assuming an unchanging climate in my problem.
I agree that with the ever-increasing temperatures, it is becoming more and more likely to set new higher temperature records.
My idea was to figure out what would be an average number of years since a new temperature record was set and then
take an average for all 365 days from a weather station and do a comparison. When I have time maybe I will do that.
It seems you get two equations with two variables.
One equation for the lateral area has two variables, say x and y.
One equation for the volume is another equation with x and y.
5. the base is an isosceles triangle with a height of 8 and a base of 3 (sides of 6)
I'm a little unclear with this.
Each year has an equal probability of being the record-holder. There are N years. So for each year the probability of it being the record-holder is 1/N. Let's say you have N balls in a bag, they are numbered 1 to N. You reach into the bag and pull out a ball at random and without looking at the number on the ball, you write a random number between 1 and 1500 on the opposite side of the ball. You do this for all of the N balls. Which numbered ball will have the highest number? It is easy to see that each ball has an equal chance of having the highest number.
I feel like such a ding-dong. I think I know the answer now.
Let's say that there are records going back N years. The probability of each year being the one that holds the record is 1/N.
So the average number of years since the latest record (which is the record overall of course) is
Thank you for your response Bobbym.
This is kind of a strange problem because we are dealing with something varying around an average that is unknown.
True, the setting of 50% is somewhat arbitrary, but the first year that there is a record we assume that the rainfall (or temperature)
record is just as likely to be above as below the average, since we don't know what the average is.
because each of the following 4 years has 50% chance of breaking it or not.
I'm comparing the following 4 years only to the first year.
There are 2 possible sequences for the first 2 years, with only one sequence having the 2nd year setting a new record. So we have a probability of 1/2 for the 2nd year setting a new record. Similar reasoning shows that the probability of the 3rd year setting a new record is 1/3 and so on...
I was thinking of a math problem that I've never seen before.
Let's say you have rainfall (or temperature) records at a certain location going back 80 years.
On average, how many years will it have been since the last record has been set?
I tried doing the math for 5 years and I'm not certain if it's correct or not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBW4S9xcTOk
This 12 year-old is asked to prove the convergence of the following...
Just looking at this.. since sin and cos vary between -1 and 1 there doesn't seem to be any way for this series to converge.
Any thoughts?
I think the answer is 13/14.
(5C4*3C0 + 5C3*3C1 + 5C2*3C2)/8C4 = 13/14.
Use the difference between the sums to head towards an answer.
I agree with you bobbym. I think humans will be extinct by 2050. Just do a google search for the record heat that is going on around the world. People don't realize what is coming. We have feedback mechanisms that are coming into play now. Maybe it will finally dawn on people that we are in serious trouble. But then again, maybe not.
Take a look...
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/497854/2 … gXAqSTn_cs
We have an explosion in the world population causing an explosion in CO2 emission.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/0 … 20236.html
I want everybody in the world to see these pictures.
This is heartbreaking.
We are going to see more and more of this in the future.
There seems to be no intention on the part of mankind to reduce
either our numbers or our emission of CO2.
What is especially scary is that the methane that is locked up in ice beneath the ocean is
starting to come out. Look up methane hydrates.
The future doesn't look good.
Holy smokes!
http://verizonmath.blogspot.com/2007/08 … tomer.html
Unbelievable.
This reminds me of the time when I was playing blackjack and they payed 2 to 1 on a suited blackjack.
I received a suited blackjack and the dealer asked me if I wanted even money.
I tried explaining that because the payoff was 2 to 1 they couldn't just give even money.
The pit-boss came over and agreed with the dealer.
Sometimes people just don't get it.
Take a look at this...
www.statesman.com/news/news/local/jury- … age/nRgqf/
Maybe somebody can explain the logic behind this....
If I run a red light and collide with another vehicle..
If the other vehicle is below the speed limit I'm 100% responsible.
If the other vehicle is speeding I'm partially at fault.
I don't see what relevance the speed of the other vehicle has with the cause of
the accident.
This is like saying somebody is at fault for an accident because they weren't
wearing their seatbelt.
We always remember the best and brightest and the ones who are almost as great are forgotten about.
Now imagine you were the poor soul who came up with
I enjoyed looking at your answer Bobbym, but I don't understand how you got
I'm not certain if this answer is correct, but it's the same answer from Mathematica.
This integral comes from trying to get the surface area of y=1/x rotated about the x-axis.
evaluate the integral
I used the idea from gurthbruins to solve this problem.
This is a very hard problem. I had printed out the problem on a sheet of
paper and decided to try to solve it. First, we draw a straight line connecting
points A and M. The point where this line intersects XY we'll call point Z.
We'll make another point called G which is the mid-point of AB. The point of
tangency for the big circle we'll call W. The center of the hexagon is the origin.
Notice that
Hello everybody! I haven't posted in a long time. But anyways...
I was working on this problem called 'The fighting fishes of Siam' by the late, great, Sam Loyd and it states that
there are two kinds of fishes, king fish and devil fish. They inevitably attack each other on sight. Three devil fish
counterbalance one king fish. Four devil fish can kill a king fish in 3 minutes with each additional fish making the new group
proportionately quicker. So I did the following... 4*3 = 12, 5*x=12, so x=2.4 or 144 seconds for 5 fish.
But the solution in the back of the book says that each fish added to a group of x fish reduces the time taken by 1/x. So for five fish they say it will take 135 seconds. The time is reduced by 1/4. This seems reasonable, but what if one devil fish killed a king fish in 3 minutes with each additional fish making the new group proportionately quicker? Then two fish would take no time at all! What about three fish then? What's going on?
I got the same answer by a different method. I first calculated the centroid of a semi-circle of radius r centered on the y-axis.
the x-coordinate of the centroid will be zero, so we just need to calculate the y-coordinate...
so the centroid is located at
The volume is equal to the area multiplied by the distance traveled by the centroid. So we have..
This is a difficult problem, but I think I have come up with the answer (hopefully).
You have a smaller cylinder intersecting a larger cylinder from the side.
Imagine that you have a 48" diameter cylinder and also a 58" diameter cylinder.
Imagine that you have a 24" diameter cylinder intersecting both.
Now, in order to find the volume of removed material all you have to do
is subtract the volume of intersection with the 48" cylinder from the
volume of intersection with the 58" cylinder. This all seems simple and
clear enough but how does one go about finding this?
Well, if you imagine the 24" cylinder intersecting the 58" cylinder you can
imagine that there will be a normal cylinder with a 'cap' on top.
The difficulty lies in finding the volume of this 'cap'.
The volume can be imagined as a rectangle moving through the 'cap'.
It's a bit hard to visualize but we need both the width and height
of the rectangle.
For the 24" cylinder looking down from above we have the relation
So the volume of removed material is
This is close to Bobbym's estimate of
I haven't solved a problem like this before so I was wondering how Bobbym got his answer.
Whew! we made it.
Taller towers would be even more complicated!
Prove that ...
Ok. I believe I have a proof by contradiction.
You know what? After I posted I realized my solution doesn't conform to the conditions of the problem.
But because it is you it is okay with me! Good work!
You are too kind!
Well,
Here's my attempt at a proof...
I'm happy to be back on mathisfun!