Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 186

 
 
Mathemat:

I'd rather have 95 and 5.

Ta no question.

When dividing the tea into 2 parts (and not separating the coffee), I get tea-55 and coffee-45. Here I am wondering how much more you can increase the final temperature difference.

First ten divisions:

0 95.000000 5.000000 5.000000 95.000000
1 50.000000 50.000000
50.000000 50.000000
2 38.750000 61.250000
55.000000 45.000000
3 33.125000 66.875000
57.031250 42.968750
4 29.609375 70.390625
58.136000 41.864000
5 27.148438 72.851563
58.831019 41.168981
6 25.302734 74.697266
59.308749 40.691251
7 23.852539 76.147461
59.657369 40.342631
8 22.674255 77.325745
59.923009 40.076991
9 21.692352 78.307648
60.132156 39.867844
10 20.857735 79.142265
60.301104 39.698896

the two left columns are for both drinks split, the two right columns are for one drink split.

--

the rest (up to 1000) in the trailer // I'd be interested in exact limits, but that's up to you, I'll pass. :)

Files:
TeaCoffee.zip  155 kb
 
MetaDriver:

the rest (up to 1000) in the trailer // I'd be interested in exact limits, but that's up to you, I'll pass. :)

10006.60551193.394489
61.87430338.125697


Well, not bad.

I'm not gonna do the math. Too many parameters. You can divide it into unequal parts.

sanyooooook:

I'll look for something similar on braingames.ru.

 
Mathemat:
10006.60551193.394489
61.87430338.125697

Not bad.

I'm not going to calculate it. Too many parameters. You can divide it into unequal parts.

Coward. You only need a limit (maximum) of the difference (at N -> ∞).

FAQ: Dividing into unequal parts always results in less difference than dividing into equal parts (easy to check).

 
MetaDriver:

Coward. We only need to calculate the limit (maximum) of the difference (at N -> ∞).

FAQ: When dividing into unequal parts, the difference is always less than when dividing into equal parts (easy to check).

Let's agree on the procedure: we divide the tea into N parts, we drop them into a litre of coffee in succession and reach thermodynamic equilibrium.

At the very end we pour all N heated parts of tea into a single container.

Right?

About the FAQ: I'm not sure, but it seems to be true.

Probably some exponent will come out in the theoretical calculation.

 

Mathemat:

I'll look for something like that on braingames.ru.

Well, if you find it, I'll move on to '75 (while I was scanning)
 
Mathemat:

Let's agree on a procedure: divide the tea into N parts, lower them into a litre of coffee in succession and reach thermodynamic equilibrium.

At the very end we pour all N heated parts of tea into a single container.

Right?

I'm paraphrasing:

1. We divide the tea into N parts,

2. We lower them into a litre of coffee, reach thermodynamic equilibrium and pour the dose into a single vessel (where we refill the remaining doses).

3. measuring.

About the FAQ: not sure, but it sounds about right.

I swear by tailgates.

I'm guessing some kind of exponent will show up in the theoretical calculations.

No way. The exponent's not bounded from above. This shit is bounded.

 

maximum mech speed 486 m/s

... After that, knock on the boat or..., in short, the sound of the command can't catch up with it.

 
joo:

maximum mech speed 486 m/s

... After that, knock on the boat or..., in short, the sound of the command can't catch up with it.

...but it can catch up with the previous clap again. ;)
 
MetaDriver:
...but it can catch up with the previous claps again. ;)
Oh, man...
Reason: