Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 109
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There was a cart with snow, travelling at speed V, now an empty cart is travelling at the same speed and snow is flying - also at the same speed.
The speed of the cart has not changed, but the momentum has dropped. Finita la comedia.
Hooray, the problem is closed =)
waiting for the next one =)
There was a cart with snow, travelling at speed V, now there is an empty cart travelling at the same speed and snow flying - also at the same speed.
The speed of the cart has not changed, but the momentum has dropped.
I don't really get it.
The cart is travelling at 10 km/h.
The snow falls on it, which moves in the same direction with the wind at a speed of 10 km / h.
?
Or did I misunderstand?
There was a cart with snow, travelling at speed V, now an empty cart is travelling at the same speed and snow is flying - also at the same speed.
The speed of the cart has not changed, but the momentum has dropped. Finita la comedia.
OK, no kickback. But the momentum is lost.
Yay, task closed =)
waiting for the next one =)
Nah, the task is still open.
I sent the solution, but it hasn't been verified yet. There are obviously nuances involved in a careful reading of the condition. Anyway, naked analysis does not bring a clear solution.
I'll find something else. I do not want to put something that I myself have not solved.
But you'll have to :)
It's different for me. The working one travels farther.
Anyway, it turns out I've obviously written an incomplete "solution". Let's keep thinking. Here's another one:
(bojan, 4 points - but for those seeing the solution for the first time, the result is highly unexpected):
Suppose we have a pillar of bricks lying on top of each other. It is allowed to move a brick lying on top of another brick flat against each other. What maximal distance can the top brick move relative to the bottom brick? The pillar is as tall as it wants to be.
By the way, I remember a puzzle about the muzik. Who remembers (if alsu - would be great, and if even find it in the bowels of the pravetki on quadruple - it would be just great)?
The problem is simply amazing with the gigantism of the figures obtained - compared to the size of the pet that is the hero of the problem.
Found a solution - here (http://forum.mql4.com/ru/29339/page180): (this is a spoiler, only those who are not going to solve it).
Nah, the problem is still open.
I've sent the solution, but it hasn't been checked yet. There are obviously nuances involved in a careful reading of the condition. In any case, bare analysis does not bring a clear solution.
I'll find something else. I don't want to post something I haven't solved myself.
But you'll have to :)
But it's different for me. The working man will go farther.
Anyway, it turns out I wrote an incomplete "solution". Let's keep thinking. Here's another one:
(bojan, 4 points - but for those seeing the solution for the first time, the result is highly unexpected):
Suppose we have a pillar of bricks lying on top of each other. It is allowed to move a brick lying on top of another brick flat against each other. What maximal distance can the top brick move relative to the lowest one? The pillar is as tall as it wants to be.
By the way, a puzzle about a muzik came to mind. Who remembers (if alsu - would be great, and if you also find it in the bowels of the pravetki on quadruple - that would be just great)?
The problem is simply gigantism of the figures obtained - compared to the size of the pet that is the hero of the problem.
Suppose we have a pillar of bricks lying on top of each other. A brick lying on top of another brick is allowed to move flat against each other. What is the maximum distance by which the top brick can be moved relative to the lowest brick? The pillar is as tall as it wants to be.
Technically, 2a bricks lying on top of each other is a pillar, because the problem does not say the minimum height of the pillar. Given that the condition must always exist, the 2a bricks are also a pillar.
Hence the maximum displacement of the uppermost brick with respect to the lowest brick will not be more than half the width of the brick. Right?
Technically, 2a bricks lying on top of each other is a pillar, because the problem does not say the minimum height of the pillar. Given that the condition must always exist, the 2a bricks are also a pillar.
Hence the maximum displacement of the uppermost brick with respect to the lowest brick will not be more than half the width of the brick. Right?
Technically, 2a bricks lying on top of each other is a pillar, because the problem does not say the minimum height of the pillar. Given that the condition must always exist, the 2a bricks are also a pillar.
Hence the maximum displacement of the uppermost brick with respect to the lowest brick will not be more than half the width of the brick. Right?
I think so, but it's kind of simple.
and the word width should probably be left out so it doesn't get picked on.