pls solve this math question...

Douglas · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Same, conceptually, as mine, except you "multiplied" by 16 in your initial unroll. Clever. The difference is from rounding.

Yeah, it's all about how many digits you want to take pi out to, particularly when squaring and subtracting.

CunningSmeagol · Jun 25, 2009

Yet another way to do it would be to take a smaller string and wrap it around your "flagpole", and extrapolate from the results.

Lady Canuker · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Yet another way to do it would be to take a smaller string and wrap it around your "flagpole", and extrapolate from the results.

dah328 · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by kleuzinger

probably still wrong. I am one of only 3 asians in all of Dallas who is not good at math. We work in 8 hour shifts.

Clemson · Jun 25, 2009

bonus: at what angle is the string wrapped around the flagpole?

dah328 · Jun 25, 2009

inverse cosine of (flagpole height / string length)

HomerJ · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by sho'nuff

this is like some advanced calculus problem. ^ that's not the answer.
I got a C- in vector calculus so I shouldn't answer.

Douglas · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by dah328

inverse cosine of (flagpole height / string length)

WRONG the correct answer is inverse tangent of ((16 x pi x 13) / flagpole height).

TheFoo · Jun 25, 2009

Okay, math people: teach me.

Can't you just multiply the number of times the string wraps around the pole by the circumference of the pole and subtract that from the total length of the string to find the height of the pole? Or am I missing a serious complication?

Douglas · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Okay, math people: teach me.

Can't you just multiply the number of times the string wraps around the pole by the circumference of the pole and subtract that from the total length of the string to find the height of the pole? Or am I missing a serious complication?

You are missing a serious complication.

You are thinking in two totally separate dimensions like a grid, when in fact the string can "shortcut" by taking a diagonal path. Think about a standing at one corner of a big square lawn and wanting to get to the opposite corner, but someone told you to keep off the grass. You can walk along one side of the lawn, then the next (which is what you are suggesting, in a way) or you can shortcut by walking diagonally through it.

**** analogy, I know, but hopefully it makes the point. You've reached the same destination either way, but you have to travel farther by walking strictly in one axis and then the other.

CunningSmeagol · Jun 25, 2009

Or in LSAT terms, you are assuming that the string wraps 16 times around the very tip of the pole, and then travels straight down to the bottom.

Douglas · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

Or in LSAT terms, you are assuming that the string wraps 16 times around the very tip of the pole, and then travels straight down to the bottom.

LOL, hysterical. A much, much clearer explanation.

TheFoo · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by Douglas

You are missing a serious complication.

You are thinking in two totally separate dimensions like a grid, when in fact the string can "shortcut" by taking a diagonal path. Think about a standing at one corner of a big square lawn and wanting to get to the opposite corner, but someone told you to keep off the grass. You can walk along one side of the lawn, then the next (which is what you are suggesting, in a way) or you can shortcut by walking diagonally through it.

**** analogy, I know, but hopefully it makes the point. You've reached the same destination either way, but you have to travel farther by walking strictly in one axis and then the other.

But the problem doesn't state whether the string wraps around the pole evenly, or if all the coils are pooled at the bottom. Say you wrapped the string around the pole, at the same place, sixteen times over, then pulled the remaining string up to the top . . .

Ah, but in that case, it would not be tightly wound, and the coils would climb the pole if you pulled. Got it.

CunningSmeagol · Jun 25, 2009

It never does say tightly wound, actually. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the omission was intentional and it's unsolvable.

TheFoo · Jun 25, 2009

Originally Posted by CunningSmeagol

It never does say tightly wound, actually. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the omission was intentional and it's unsolvable.

You could say at least how tall it is, using the dumbfoo method.

pls solve this math question...

Stupid ass member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Senior Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Stupid ass member

THE FOO

Stupid ass member

Distinguished Member

Stupid ass member

THE FOO

Distinguished Member

THE FOO

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Similar threads

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: