Jump to content

Solve this simple math problem

Knoxtnhorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Knoxtnhorn

Knoxtnhorn 6309

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm screwing something up.

I got 11 for the bottom.

On top I multiplied 5.5x1.5 to get 8.25.  Then, I subtracted 1.5 which, I thought would be the area of the two theoretical right triangles on either side of the top shape. 

Added to the bottpm, I got 17.75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32081

Posted
Posted (edited)

three rectangles.

2x5.5 for the lower one, 11.

4.5x1.5 for the upper one, with the triangles lopped off, 6.75.

The two triangles make a rectangle of 1.5x1, 1.5  Oops, fucked this up.  1.5x.5, .75

18.5.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32081

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Knoxtnhorn said:

I'm screwing something up.

I got 11 for the bottom.

On top I multiplied 5.5x1.5 to get 8.25.  Then, I subtracted 1.5 which, I thought would be the area of the two theoretical right triangles on either side of the top shape. 

Added to the bottpm, I got 17.75.

You made the same mistake I did.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24654

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, freyguy said:

Jeezus christ some of ya are dumb.  

You know they have a formula for the area of a trapezoid.....

Deadshank is the winner.  18.5.

 

Don’t say that!  If my wife hears she’ll think she’s getting to go shop for more new shoes. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

30 minutes ago, deadshank said:

18.5

Thats what I love about the subs.

 

ARCHITECTS GENERAL NOTES:

1. Contractor, and or sub contractors to be responsible for figuring out shit, and purchasing the correct amount of materials to properly complete the construction of (insert anything) per the specifications, and call outs found on these construction documents dated xxxxxxx..........

 

Edited by Onboard 2.0
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24654

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 

Thats what I love about the subs.

 

ARCHITECTS GENERAL NOTES:

1. Contractor, and or sub contractors to be responsible for figuring out shit, and purchasing the correct amount of materials to properly complete the construction of (insert anything) per the specifications, and call outs found on these construction documents dated xxxxxxx..........

 

DO NOT SCALE PLANS

(architect prolly screwed it up but owner and builder needs a bid based on a guess)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, deadshank said:

DO NOT SCALE PLANS

(architect prolly screwed it up but owner and builder needs a bid based on a guess)

I can neither confirm nor deny any such charges...

 

I've always been pretty consistent on drawings being correct sizes, and matching the dimensions, even when I was hand drawing back in the mid 80's. With CAD there's really no excuse for anything to be incorrectly scaled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24654

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I can neither confirm nor deny any such charges...

 

I've always been pretty consistent on drawings being correct sizes, and matching the dimensions, even when I was hand drawing back in the mid 80's. With CAD there's really no excuse for anything to be incorrectly scaled.

It still happens.  The roof plan and exterior elevations are clearly 1/4" = 1' - 0" when referenced checked per notes on grade to clear height, eave overhang or some other static dimension.  

Bottom right corner of "A" pages say 3/32" = 1' - 0".  

You ridiculous dude.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bevo

Bevo 13899

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, deadshank said:

You're fired for wasting company time and not paying attention in 10th grade geometry.

Yeah, but I got the right answer. And I am self-employed now so I have plenty of time to waste.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9973

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Bevo said:

N=1, if N is any number other than 1 then P=0

I'm just guessing though.

Thank you.

From what I understand of the equation, solving P = NP ? answers the question of "whether problems that can be verified in polynomial time can also be solved in polynomial time."  

I understand Scott Aronson at the University is working on it.  The answer is currently considered unsolved in computer science, from what I understand.

And, from what I understand, if P = NP, it's a whole new world in many disciplines. (Oh and there is a million dollar prize for solving it (and it would be worth trillions)). 

http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/p-vs-np-problem

Spoiler

Suppose that you are organizing housing accommodations for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred of the students will receive places in the dormitory. To complicate matters, the Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list appear in your final choice.

This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair taken from your coworker's list also appears on the list from the Dean's office), however the task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed, the total number of ways of choosing one hundred students from the four hundred applicants is greater than the number of atoms in the known universe! Thus no future civilization could ever hope to build a supercomputer capable of solving the problem by brute force; that is, by checking every possible combination of 100 students.

However, this apparent difficulty may only reflect the lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one of the outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose answer can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems like the one listed above certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an answer with the help of a computer.

Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulated the P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971.

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...