You are not logged in.
Hi gAr;
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
Yes, looks complicated!
Nice problem, by the way.
Thanks!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
Did you use geogebra to solve it too?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
No, I used distance formula with weights and wrote a c program.
I did not know what to do with weights in geogebra.
But I found that the point (80,87) is very close to the line joining (0,0) and the center of gravity.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
The actual minimal Euclidean distance for the town is with x = 80.34162 and y = 86.862787.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
For that actual (x,y), the distance from the line segment joining (0,0) and C.G is about 3 units.
I'm lazy to check for more examples!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
I think that is because the triangle is almost isosceles and the weights are almost equal. Usually the Fermat Point does not coincide with the center of gravity. But I think it does with an isosceles triangle. So it is going to be close in this case.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Okay.
I know that it can't coincide with C.G, since mass and distance are different quantities. But still, simply observed that.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
Correction, they will coincide with an equilateral triangle. I guess the weights helped put it close. If I had a closed form for this point P then we could examine when the weighted Fermat point and the centroid coincide.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
Okay, thanks for checking.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
New Problem:
Two countries are at war. Country A captures 10 enemy tanks. The serial numbers of the captured tanks is as follows:
{2421,13970,8055,4334,2793,12467,9638,8272,3415,3295}
Now it is known that the enemy sequentially numbered their tanks starting at 1. Country A would like to estimate the total number of enemy tanks. They ask our panel if it is possible to guess that just based on the 10 serial numbers.
A says) Of course, it is a morphism with the the set of integers from {1,2,3,4,5,..., 27940}. So the answer is 27940.
B says) That is not correct.
C says) Obviously 15000 tanks is the answer.
D says) The question is impossible to answer, I agree with B.
E says) I am calculating 15366 tanks. I am sure I am right and B is a phony.
B says) I never said it was impossible to answer. C and E used a very primitive method, it is possible to get the exact expected number of tanks.
What do you think? Can you find the expected number of enemy tanks?
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Thanks!
But what's R.I.P.O.S.T.P. ?
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
An acronym. It means, "Research Is Part Of Solving The Problem."
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Oh, okay!
World wars were bad, but also led to rapid advancement of technology, isn't it?!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Yes, that is true.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
New Problem!
A says, I have got one. The first 250 positive odd numbers are put on the blackboard. Two numbers are picked randomly at a time, let us call them a and b. a and b are erased and replaced by one number a + b - 2. This is done, over and over until just one number remains. What is the number? I challenge you C,D,E and especially B to solve this with math only. No blasted programs! No simulations!
B says) I got it.
C says) Me too.
D says) I am going home.
E says) I got it too.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Hi bobbym,
Last edited by gAr (2011-06-10 18:31:13)
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
Hi gAr;
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Cool!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
It is a nice little problem. The whole part of the random numbers is not even important to the problem. You could pick the first and last numbers every time or any other pair.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Yes, it's not obvious at first.
Only after I checked small examples I realized it.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline
I was busy programming it when I subtracted c instead of 2. That is when I saw what was happening.
In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Always satisfy the Prime Directive of getting the right answer above all else.
Offline
Even a tiny mistake can be so frustrating!
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense" - Buddha?
"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."
Offline