[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 437
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
I take it that the expression Y=(A^2 + A) has no solution :) Is there really no formula that can calculate A? Is mathematics powerless?
I think we learned something at school, about Viets..... ))
Then why none of thirty five-graders has written the formula? Why six engineers reporting to the chief engineer of the plant, which my friend is, could not solve the problem? It turns out that there is no concrete solution.
I can answer you in your manner: Where in the task is it written, that it is necessary to go down alive? ) So on.
I gave this condition, because the author did not formulate it completely. Shall I reformulate it?
Valery, I am not a literalist - I just studied logic for more than a year. This study has forced me to become discerning. My attempts at clarity are dictated not by malice, but by a desire to reduce the amount of effort that leads to the right result. Look, take the same problem about the mountain climber. If I do not tell him that the wall is steep, he follows the wrong path, supposing that it is possible to get down without a rope. If I do not say that the rope cannot be cut lengthways and the person assumes that it is possible - believe me I have asked this problem to friends and they gave me exactly this assumption. I told them that there is a tree at the top of the cliff which the rope can be tied to. But I had to refuse this formulation, because some people wanted to cut a longer branch from the tree with a knife and use it for a rope, which was absolutely unnecessary. Do you see what inaccuracies in the wording of the condition lead to?
Now about being alive. Not all conditions are always explicitly stated - there are things that are assumed because it is assumed that everyone knows these things. This practice works in court proceedings all over the world. People communicate on the assumption that those around them have some baseline of knowledge which does not need to be proved or stipulated. If ambiguity arises in the interpretation of a term, even judges look to the explanatory dictionaries for help, believing the definitions taken from there to be correct and sufficient for the construction of evidence. This leads us to the point that the editor of the books has a hell of a responsibility. Judges can similarly refer to textbooks and reference books in various disciplines for reference. But they do not - as soon as such a misunderstanding arises, the judge calls an expert and relies on his evidence.
Please don't be prejudiced by my attempts to bring unambiguous clarity to the wording of terms - it saves us all a lot of time and effort. I can also add that such an approach to solving life's problems has prevented me from making a lot of gross mistakes in my time.
I quite understand your silent protest - your body resists this approach because it knows that it will be just another training session for you. That makes you want to bite me :)
I might also add that when I started learning logic, she hit me, and it hurt. Very painful - I had to engage in a terrible war with myself to remake my character - to sharpen it for new patterns of behaviour and new patterns of thinking, which turned out to be quite difficult. I was learning for real, not just reading and memorizing - I was practicing the knowledge I gained. So I know exactly how much fun and how much precision and clarity brings.
You know, I've become convinced that simple solutions are the hardest to find. That's because you have to discard a lot of junk before you get to the pearl. The person who formulates the raw data is not always able to give the exact wording. This, as I hinted at above, requires a habit born of repetition of practice. One finds oneself unable to give accuracy and not even aware of it. So I don't get angry, I just try to get things in order.
So, my activity is not motivated by my letter-writing or maliciousness, but by the necessity to achieve the goal by the shortest possible route, using the least possible amount of resources (in this case the resources of energy and time).
drknn, I have no idea how, where and what attaches. Where the hooks, steps, crampons and other stuff is. I don't have a clue.
Why don't I email you the right answer? You'll be convinced you were wrong to think you couldn't solve such a problem. On the other hand, if, God forbid, you find yourself in this predicament, you'll remember the problem and know how to proceed. If you do, it might save your life one day.
I'm sending you an answer in a private message?
Then why have none of the thirty fifth-graders written the formula? Why could not six engineers reporting to the chief engineer of the company, who is my friend? It turns out that there is no concrete solution.
There is a solution - Alexey has already shown it. But it is not a problem for the fifth grade. If you remove the condition of finding a solution for fifth graders, the formula can be described quite well through the equation of the second degree. Do you need such a formula?
А=........
Since this is a quadratic equation, through discriminant and calculating the roots of the equation we get A1 and A2. Show?
Why...? Same reason.
Why are military aircraft going down? Have you seen how they are built? With a tolerance of +-0.3 mm for load-bearing parts, they are clearly defective and understated by 0.8. Because Russia.... Damn, I'm speechless. What kind of engineers cannot see in their heads that a parabola with a horizontal line may have 0, 1 and 2 intersection points.
Throw it in, what the hell...
2 Richie:
X/(2*Z) = A^2 + A = ( A + 1/2 )^2 - 1/4
Hence A = sqrt( X/(2*Z) + 0.25 ) - 0.5
I don't know where and how to get the integers, and I'm too lazy to think... But the root is the same, because the solution is obviously positive.
Throw it in, what the hell...