420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
Subject
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Pleb Contemplates Curvature by Pleb - Mon, 23 May 2016 14:22:48 EST ID:BB0KLoxX No.15128 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1464027768468.png -(150891B / 147.35KB, 769x595) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 150891
I am certain i am missing information so i appeal to you brainy smarties to educate me However this also may be a physics questions. I dunno.

Do curves actually exist? Meaning at the smallest point possible (I would assume planck length) would it not be a straight line from point A to point B then a second straight line from point B to point C etc etc? Only upon pulling back far enough to no longer see the individual points does the curve appear?
31 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Beatrice Sapperperk - Sat, 20 May 2017 01:59:48 EST ID:VoDJt227 No.15505 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15475
>You can't know that you're on a screen made of discrete pixels.

Do you not know that you're made of discrete particles?

>What if you "really are" in such a space but the laws of physics in your world make models which take space to be continuous much more accurate than any dicrete models you can produce?

That's not how it works. We make models to help us understand nature. If a model is successful at explaining things, we attribute to it the quality of reality. This is called model-dependent realism.

>You can't know that way down there is some discrete object which makes everything up

Again, you provide no reason why it's impossible to know this. In the case of the pixel-screen universe, the surface of an object would change depending on how the object was oriented. This would measurably affect the friction experienced between objects.

>Occam's razor says that you should behave as though space is continuous.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>
Martha Surringstidging - Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:59:35 EST ID:cJu72Hgm No.15534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15128
curves exist about a point, not at the point itself
8)
>>
Charles Fillylitch - Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:12:59 EST ID:lub1zF0h No.15539 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15534

From your reductionistic point of view, how can any physical or mathematical model bear any relevance to reality outside of approximation? What is the point of doing mathematics or theoretical physics outside of productive application if ultimately they do not reflect reality? I think from your point of view the best results in these fields are mere coincidences and logical trinkets that have the same value of clever wordplay in a joke.

I think if you continue down that avenue, mathematics is just the domain of specious logical combinations deduced from baseless intuitions that are ultimately of no relevance to "out there".

It is the physical version of the philosophical point of view that all experience is sensory illusion, that humans are ultimately barred from experiencing truth or reality, the modern interpretation of religious wretchedness, and the negation of the humanist conception of what people are capable of doing through the right and rigorous exercise of reason.
>>
David Sobberford - Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:56:49 EST ID:KoXeDG6b No.15562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'm pretty distraught to see people trying to answer a mathematics question with physics.
To answer OP's question:
In mathematics, yes curves exist all the time.
In physics, depends which physicist you ask.
>>
Wesley Crecklebot - Thu, 14 Sep 2017 23:14:27 EST ID:kSqLGZD/ No.15563 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15562

The reason that people do math is that there is some hope it corresponds to reality... The issue is whether the mathematical reality corresponds to what is "out there"


Oh fuck. by Poor faggot - Sun, 10 Sep 2017 05:38:52 EST ID:8UKf4f6U No.15559 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1505036332760.jpg -(1849091B / 1.76MB, 3264x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 1849091
Just entered college and put my major down as math.
I haven't fucking done math in years. I dropped out! I fucking dropped out because I thought fuck high school, college is where its at. Now I'm fucking here and i have no clue what I'm doing.
Tips?
Picture is a latern I stole from a meth-head while he was in jail. Its my finest decoration in my dorm.
>>
David Sobberford - Tue, 12 Sep 2017 20:54:20 EST ID:KoXeDG6b No.15561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>TIps?

Guess what motherfucker, you just entered the best job field of all time. The good thing about math is that if you put the time into it you can understand it at any level.
Maybe you're interested in economics? If you do a math degree with a minor in Econ, you can go Ivy League for grad school.
Choosing a math degree was the smartest shit I ever did.


Complex Analysis by Hamilton Dosslemene - Tue, 08 Aug 2017 21:15:47 EST ID:2Nfpe0g9 No.15547 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1502241347722.jpg -(39592B / 38.66KB, 331x499) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 39592
Can somebody explain to me why I need to take a Complex Analysis class?

I'm doing a MS Mathematics and going on to a PhD in Statistics/Probability

I don't see any fucking point in studying Complex Anal.
>>
Ebenezer Demblekere - Thu, 10 Aug 2017 15:15:33 EST ID:gFrVWF8h No.15548 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15547

Are you sure you have to take that specific class? At my university there are distribution requirements, where you might have to take a year of some type of analysis class. Maybe you can change the MS program you are enrolled in to an applied math MS where the requirements are different. Even then, complex analysis is a branch of math that has a lot of real world uses, it's not like this is a class on Galois theory.

Here you are required to take 2 semesters of regular analysis, but not the complex.
>>
Walter Davinglock - Mon, 11 Sep 2017 09:56:07 EST ID:wdbZy6Bd No.15560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15548
Yeah...actually I tried not taking it and my advisor said I have to.

Tbh now that I'm in the class it ain't bad. But I wanted to take a statistical theory course and own i cant.


Visually Understanding Math by Shit Blangertere - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:57:11 EST ID:RLkenDTl No.14091 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1403002631911.jpg -(499955B / 488.24KB, 1200x780) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 499955
Hi guys,

Wondering if anyone could point me to an introductory level book on Math that teaches primarily by showing how to visualise the math so that I can understand HOW it works (as opposed to just memorising the equations/procedures and accepting that they work).

I'm thinking of going Feynman's Lectures atm, but am wondering if there's something better you guys might recommend.

Again, would like it to start at the very basics if possible.

Thanks and Jesus.
>>
Nigger Grimson - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 15:24:42 EST ID:8PJ0nVdr No.14092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How introductory do you need?
>>
Django Fairfeather - Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:13:55 EST ID:Dk8yywxc No.14094 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14091

Most well received modern textbooks will have lots of diagrams for more visual learners, the question is what level of material you're looking for. Are you looking for enjoyable math that may not be taught in a course or fundamentals like algebra and calculus?

If you're hardcore you could get a good translation of Euclid's elements, that is about as visual as it gets. I don't have a good recommendation at algebra level, but if you're wanting to learn calculus, Kline's "Calculus: an intuitive and physical approach" is good and doesn't make many assumptions about what you know. Everyone has their own pet favorite calc book though so it may not be helpful for you.
>>
David Pittford - Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:23:54 EST ID:Gw2IN3ba No.14095 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Feynman's Lectures

Though these do include chapters on mathematics, they are primarily geared toward teaching physics (you probably already know this). I hear great things about them; and from what I know of Feynman, he probably does a decent job of presenting mathematics in an easily comprehensible way. This reminds me that I need to get around to reading them myself.

However well he presents the mathematical topics, the scope will be narrow - focussing on just the mathematics of physics. But maybe that's all you're looking for. It really depends on which fields of mathematics you wish to understand and your current understanding. You said you wanted to start from the basics, so as >>14094 suggested, try reading Euclid's Elements. You also hinted that you are a visual learner, so maybe this is also a good fit:

http://www.amazon.com/Proofs-without-Words-Exercises-Classroom/dp/0883857006

And then there's always the most recommended resource for math self-teaching: Khan Academy. Obligatory link:

https://www.khanacademy.org/

That's all I got. Good luck!
>>
Sophie Blackhood - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 01:36:00 EST ID:m52FE4m4 No.15554 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14091
Source on the pic OP?
>>
Cyril Duvingbug - Thu, 07 Sep 2017 19:20:05 EST ID:m52FE4m4 No.15557 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14091
I need a source on this fucking picture.


Mandelbrot Set Shirt by Mandelbrot Shirt - Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:48:56 EST ID:rRFjERp7 No.15556 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1504216136751.jpg -(73252B / 71.54KB, 480x541) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 73252
Rep your love for mandelbrot fractals!

teespring.com/mandelbrot-longsleeve


What's the biggest number? by Nathaniel Sacklespear - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:54:08 EST ID:XssdERJk No.15209 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1474638848911.jpg -(72632B / 70.93KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 72632
Assume we had all the possible methods of information storage in the universe and all the resources of the universe at our whimsical disposal.

What's the largest number we could put down in some kind of recording before we ran out of universe?

So I guess the core question I'm asking is what's the most compact way to write large numbers? Is there anything that beats out scientific notation? And what's the greatest extreme to which we could conceivably take this?
27 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Martin Surrywell - Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:08:20 EST ID:h0vIir1X No.15532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
hiffwe
>>
Wesley Feshham - Fri, 25 Aug 2017 23:59:07 EST ID:Kt7gF4g2 No.15551 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
Infinity is the closest truthful answer you will get. It's incomprehensible. The lie you'd get is a guesstimation based off of a simulation which will undoubtedly have confounding variables, variables not considered, etc.
>>
Molly Blimmerdock - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:59:57 EST ID:gFrVWF8h No.15553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15551

Given any infinite ordinal there is a larger one. Given any infinite value, you can construct a larger one.
>>
Eliza Blackworth - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:44:00 EST ID:z6ik/LbC No.15555 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15551
>It's incomprehensible.

For you maybe. Thousands of people have a solid understanding of infinity.
>>
Matilda Clipperhood - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 10:23:22 EST ID:vnPM6s0z No.15558 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
tree fiddy


Getting into Physics ---> Quantum stuff by Beatrice Sepperhall - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:14:21 EST ID:t/8wjLF3 No.14296 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1408641261077.jpg -(125896B / 122.95KB, 1200x930) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 125896
Where should I start? Should I learn a bunch of calculus first? I was recommended University Physics With Modern Physics (Young & Freedman) to start with and then to move to Quantum Mechanics (Bransden & Joachain). At least to start off with.

Any other recommendations or whatever? Besides college and stuff, just on maybe the order you began learning it or w/e? thanks.
5 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Hamilton Docklekane - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 22:21:50 EST ID:n1HpAHmU No.14344 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14341
I personally think the study of differential equations is more important to have down before the linear algebra when learning the basics of QM, because then you can get a feel for what Shrodinger's equation is saying, but there is much debate on the proper pedagogy for teaching it. Vibrations and Waves by French is my personal choice for learning diff eq.s and linear algebra/ their applications to physics all in one nice bundle. Also Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences by Boas has been a life saver for soooo many areas in physics. I still keep my copy of it from sophomore year in college on my bookshelf.
>>
Archie Worthingfield - Sun, 07 Sep 2014 18:26:47 EST ID:xvgqavvT No.14354 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Here ya go, a full list of exactly what you need to be a good theoretical physicist
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~Gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

Many of the links don't work anymore, so substitute with MIT Open Courseware lectures on Math/Physics or whatever modern books you can find. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/video-lectures/
>>
Barnaby Brellyhick - Sat, 20 May 2017 21:48:22 EST ID:EJeHrwkJ No.15507 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14296
Write a paper suggesting a link between chemistry and physics
>>
Martin Murdman - Mon, 19 Jun 2017 22:10:21 EST ID:q/daWEW+ No.15522 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>14296
Learn calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, and abstract algebra/group theory. Read Quantum Mechanics by Shankar. When they start about euler lagrange equations as a way of doing classical mechanics problems check out Give Taylor's Classical Mechanics.

If you want to go deep the Landau Lifshitz books are essential. Griffith has a good E&M book if you are only interested in learning enough E&M to do advanced quantum. Gordon Baymn's lectures on quantum are really dense, but really well summarize the most essential aspects of quantum, and teach you how to solve some really practical problems (spectroscopy/scatter/super conductivity class shit). Messiah's and Sakurai's textbooks are each good in their own ways.

take acid
>>
Jack Brookham - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 12:25:01 EST ID:wgTUzquz No.15552 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You need calc 1 and maybe calc 2 (techniques of integration) for undergrad level physics books (specifically Newtonian mechanics and Electromagnetism). I used University Physics which you mention and Fundementals of Physics by Halliday and Resnick, either will do (get an old edition for cheap) but I personally liked University Physics more.

As for QM you'll need linear algebra and differential equations, both of which you should study after calculus. I'd recommend getting an old edition of Calculus by Stewart, Spivak might be too much if you've never seen calculus or if your algebra and trig is weak. Undergrad math textbooks are generally shitty money grabs, and MIT has some of their's up for free.

For other book suggestions I'd recommend looking at a university's physics courses and their respective syllabi.


how i relearned erry mathsz by Lydia Lightshit - Fri, 05 Feb 2016 02:37:19 EST ID:mVsq12K/ No.15040 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1454657839252.png -(56956B / 55.62KB, 722x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56956
Everyday before work, I woke up 2 hours early and forced myself to read/do exercises of the following books. (this later became 3 hours). I averaged 3 books per month if they were survey books, and about 1-3 months for a rigorous book. This became an easy routine after the first week, and I'm still doing this.

>1) Daily Rituals by Mason Currey
https://books.google.ca/books/about/Daily_Rituals.html?id=hA-MoAEACAAJ
This is where I got the idea of making a routine from, it's a survey of historical artists, philosophers, scientists ect who all had a routine in order to get work done consistently. Franz Kafka would split his sleep up into 2 section in order to fit in work beside his regular office job.

>2) Basic College Mathematics by M. Lial et all
https://books.google.ca/books?id=ucUDMAEACAAJ&dq=basic+college+mathematics
As mentioned before in here this covers elementary school and Jr. High math basically. You can just survey this for the most part (not do any exercises) unless you don't understand something, then do the exercises. Took 3 days to survey this. When I later took Harvard's CS50 computer science course, the first lecture about Binary numbers directly was related to this book's first chapter on whole numbers. I torrented this book.

>3)Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang
https://books.google.ca/books?id=gBtvo480ng4C&dq=basic+mathematics
I got out the notepaper and did most of the exercises by hand. This was all focused on reasoning, why is this true, how do we prove this is true, ect. This book teaches you so well that applied calculus is your bitch afterwards. I torrented this book too since author dead, copies are like $80 on amazon.

>4)Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning by Eccles
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
21 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Frederick Wicklesadging - Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:25:37 EST ID:bkgMqk62 No.15326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15324

That's a slow pace, but good. I think if you are reading three math books in a month you are missing a lot of details. It took me a year to read Shoenield's mathematical logic and I have been reading Kunen's set theory for a year nearly and I'm only half way through. Shit takes time.
>>
Emma Drundlestock - Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:38:21 EST ID:0v0QG0m/ No.15330 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1486406301032.gif -(1998868B / 1.91MB, 268x453) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>15326
>That's a slow pace,
Yes, I know it. That's because I got my bachelor degree in maths but never studied it seriously until now, that I have noticed my lack of foundations; and it's because of that that I don't go on unless I'm pretty sure I have solved and understood every single part of the text and the problems, specially set theory and logic, wich are basic for all mathematics. Solving all the doubts arising when studying mathematics is a very important part of our study routine if one really wants to understand them... and it's probably the most tedious part.

>Shoenield's mathematical logic
I'd swear it was a model theory book. I remember I didn't buy it due to that, and bought Richard E. Hodel's An Introduction to Mathematical Logic instead.
>>
Jarvis Pessledale - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:19:17 EST ID:ueMHQ1BO No.15419 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15040
sick, now read a Math physics textbook and become a god
>>
George Blatherbanks - Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:35:05 EST ID:ck7N7PYR No.15422 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Frankel's The Geometry of Physics: A very good way to learn what modern geometry tastes like.
>>
Albert Bivinghall - Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:01:37 EST ID:OVoqDNaY No.15550 Ignore Report Quick Reply
bump


Hey Neeeeerd by Alice Bleffingford - Sun, 23 Jul 2017 18:23:32 EST ID:n3nShEOS No.15542 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1500848612257.jpg -(59386B / 57.99KB, 580x407) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 59386
Why do you post here? Wouldn't it be easier to go to a forum or something that is specifically created for mathematics discussion? Why do you post here and wait like 4 weeks for a reply from some stoned hippy when you can go somewhere else for quicker and more informed input?
>>
Graham Cundlefoot - Mon, 24 Jul 2017 01:29:22 EST ID:gFrVWF8h No.15543 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15542

Why do you post on any of the boards? I'm sure on any topic discussed on this website you can find another site easily with more informed people. The point is not to get quick and informed input, but for casual discussion to check on every now and then. You can just talk about what you like and why without it being up to scrutiny on whether or not it belongs.
>>
William Wommerdock - Tue, 01 Aug 2017 16:34:22 EST ID:aLAhpvQF No.15544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is hilarious because I just checked here after many years of ever thinking about this place. Yeah I guess man, if I had some kind of specific question it would be better suited for a kind of other place.

So a little about me because whatever. I was shit at math in highschool, but after visiting the world and settling in a progressive city with a bunch of random weirdos, I found myself taking yoga and accidentally testing into a math course way above my belt and smoking weed beyond my usual "hit it and quit it" threhold-optimizing/pussy norm.
Anyhow, prof always showed up in a hoodie and was basically of the sense that if you seemed to make an effort, you got full points. He encouraged learning over stupid point games. He was an excellent teacher. He had refused university positions because working at a community college allowed him these freedoms.

Anyhow. The people here, are the people I imagine doing math with. I wish there was some way we could magically come together. It is impossible, of course. If we had some "code" it would be idiotic, same if we tried organizing a meetup. Complete clusterfuck.

Anyhow, the people who find themselves here. That's why I post here. Except I don't really post here, by my own admission. But anyhow well hi. And keep posting here. And we'll keep finding eachother.
Nice to see you again.
>>
Beatrice Shakeworth - Fri, 04 Aug 2017 20:26:41 EST ID:tJT+tGcW No.15545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1501892801010.png -(78293B / 76.46KB, 455x408) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I enjoy having conversations about things other than how many men kim kardashian has fucked this week, especially if its conversation with random druggos online
>>
Clara Dartman - Mon, 07 Aug 2017 05:41:18 EST ID:IYDdeQTK No.15546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15544
Pretty sure the IRC is an acceptable workaround for the no hookups rule and if you guys wanted you could all get some messaging service that would be a lot faster and more direct to collaborate on maths.
>>
Isabella Blatherson - Fri, 11 Aug 2017 10:36:54 EST ID:GTsdVIEf No.15549 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15545
I reckon it didn't go back to 79 the following minute.


Physics. Forces. Springs. by Cyril Nucklepodging - Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:24:40 EST ID:tgwdoW8d No.15535 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1500215080231.png -(16883B / 16.49KB, 973x331) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 16883
Does it matter what ordeer 2 springs are in, if youre stacking them and measuring the total force?
>>
Esther Dartfield - Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:06:29 EST ID:A2j/BW/W No.15541 Ignore Report Quick Reply
no


Calc by Fry & Leela - Sun, 16 Jul 2017 12:43:38 EST ID:Rhgh4/nK No.15536 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1500223418101.jpg -(12838B / 12.54KB, 398x66) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12838
Can anyone tell me where to begin with this problem? I'm clueless. Our professor didn't cover it. I imagine start by taking d/dx and plugging the values in at some point?
Thanks
>>
Cyril Clugglefoot - Mon, 17 Jul 2017 18:43:04 EST ID:tgwdoW8d No.15537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So... when the derivative crosses the y-axis, that means that your function, x2x-ex, there has changed directions. So that means that ANY time your d/dx crosses the y-axis, it creates a "local" maximum value, which may not be the overall actual max peak.

I believe you:
  • find the derivative
  • find the zeros (what's that process called again?), i.e. solve for zero
  • plug in each x value you found into the original function, x2e-x -> compare all y values to find the greatest


Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been 3 years.
>>
Fuck Murdridge - Tue, 18 Jul 2017 16:12:50 EST ID:XBxBdy5C No.15538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15537

Pretty much this, but check the values at the endpoints of the interval too not just at local Mac/mins.
>>
Martha Hellyford - Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:10:34 EST ID:cezjQDuj No.15540 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15537
>So that means that ANY time your d/dx crosses the y-axis, it creates a "local" maximum value
Oops, I meant
>creates a "local" max OR min value, i.e. just a peak/trough somewhere
It's only a max if the derivative's slope is negative around that zero


Math Problems you came up with by Charles Fundlepeck - Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:37:54 EST ID:jadYTFeE No.15524 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1498163874635.gif -(2096042B / 2.00MB, 338x252) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2096042
A rectangular piece of cardboard has a length that is twice its width. Squares with sides that measure 1/10 of the length of the cardboard are cut from each corner and the resulting flaps of the cardboard are turned up to form an open box. A maximum of 24 cubes that measure 2 inches on the sides can fit perfectly inside the box. What are the dimensions of the box? What were the length and width of the rectangular cardboard before it was cut and made into a box?
2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
James Gembleford - Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:09:11 EST ID:j58znr37 No.15527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15526
The number I gave before is close to 11. I checked and unless this is a rounding issue I'm either right or setting up the problem incorrectly.
>>
Betsy Cenderhall - Thu, 22 Jun 2017 21:12:25 EST ID:jadYTFeE No.15528 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15527
I think you're setting the problem incorrectly. Here's a hint: The width consists of just two digits.
>>
James Gembleford - Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:49:39 EST ID:j58znr37 No.15529 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15528
Oh I was doing squares which are 1/10 the width of the cardboard, not the length.
>>
James Gembleford - Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:43:03 EST ID:j58znr37 No.15530 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So I now realise that my other answer doesn't really make sense because the resulting box would be the right volume to contain the cubes but not the right height. With that in mind, the solution is easy. Let x be the width of the original cardboard. The length is then 2x and the side length of the squares removed is (1/10)2x=(1/5)x. But this number becomes the height of our box, which must be 2in if the cubes are to fit perfectly inside. Solving (1/5)x=2in we find the width can only be 10in and the length 20in.
>>
Betsy Cenderhall - Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:54:59 EST ID:jadYTFeE No.15531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15530
Congrats, you got it! I hope others here had fun with my little problem.


Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.