Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's a stretch. the flower and stem is magically stretched taut to the edge of the pond by the 5 foot pole, that pulls it in from the center. and of course the flower and the entire root system is magically anchored in one point directly beneath the flower floating in the center of the pond. In that case you are correct the pythagorean formula is applicable, provides the correct solution.
And you know that the distance from the bottom of the pool to the edge is the length of the stem from root to flower, whereas the distance from the bottom to the center of the pool is that same distance minus one foot.
Why are you so convinced this is not true?
Originally posted by eldragonflyDo you think math is applicable to the real world at all? Do you think projectile motion analysis is impossible because of air resistance and the curvature of the Earth? Your skepticism is astounding.
That's a stretch. the flower and stem is magically stretched taut to the edge of the pond by the 5 foot pole, that pulls it in from the center. and of course the flower and the entire root system is magically anchored in one point directly beneath the flower floating in the center of the pond. In that case you are correct the pythagorean formula is applicable, provides the correct solution.
1. The original question shows that the flower is rooted to the ground. If it was freefloating it wouldn't move back to its original location, now would it?
I'm sure you can come up with some bull spacetime explanation here. Or that its being held by some massive frog elsewhere. But honestly common sense here, it MATH, you're not supposed to do fiction with math.
2. 5^2 + X^2=Y^2
Can't you solve X in terms of Y and substitute. My math is rusty and I'm lazy but that worked when I was in calc. and my teacher was no slouch or anything.
Originally posted by tamuziIf you will notice the problem was redefined, since it was poorly worded.
1. The original question shows that the flower is rooted to the ground. If it was freefloating it wouldn't move back to its original location, now would it?
I'm sure you can come up with some bull spacetime explanation here. Or that its being held by some massive frog elsewhere. But honestly common sense here, it MATH, you're not supposed to do fiction with ...[text shortened]... and I'm lazy but that worked when I was in calc. and my teacher was no slouch or anything.
Originally posted by tamuziOh, damn, we forgot to factor in the frog 🙂
1. The original question shows that the flower is rooted to the ground. If it was freefloating it wouldn't move back to its original location, now would it?
I'm sure you can come up with some bull spacetime explanation here. Or that its being held by some massive frog elsewhere. But honestly common sense here, it MATH, you're not supposed to do fiction with ...[text shortened]... and I'm lazy but that worked when I was in calc. and my teacher was no slouch or anything.
Originally posted by eldragonflyA lot of applied mathematics involves making simplified assumptions that you KNOW aren't 100% accurate, but which do not have a significant impact on the answer you arrive at.
That's a stretch. the flower and stem is magically stretched taut to the edge of the pond by the 5 foot pole, that pulls it in from the center. and of course the flower and the entire root system is magically anchored in one point directly beneath the flower floating in the center of the pond. In that case you are correct the pythagorean formula is applicable, provides the correct solution.
Calculations relating motion and time for objects frequently omit friction and drag factors, because they complicate the process significantly and yet under a large number of circumstances, their actual effect on the answer is fairly insignificant.
Consider for a moment that this problem as posed is very similar in nature, in that we do not KNOW that the stem remains taut, but assuming it does allows us to arrive at a reasonably accurate answer.
Consider also that the problem as posed was intended as a simple trig word problem, rather than as a engineering-level poser where such details and the way the stem bends might change the answer enough that you have to account for it.
Take the problem for what it was intended as, please. If you wish to consider it as contrived, you are welcome to do so, for in a small sense, it is. The math behind it is not contrived, however, if you do not try to overcomplicate it.
Originally posted by geepamoogletwaddle. Actually that's not true, it's just that PBE6's problems tend to be poorly worded, and he often supplies idiotic responses when you ask a simple question.
A lot of applied mathematics involves making simplified assumptions that you KNOW aren't 100% accurate, but which do not have a significant impact on the answer you arrive at.
Originally posted by geepamoogleshould have used a piece of string and a floating object, like a beach ball or something. Don't be silly geep.
Consider also that the problem as posed was intended as a simple trig word problem, rather than as a engineering-level poser where such details and the way the stem bends might change the answer enough that you have to account for it.
If you do not like a problem as worded, and do not accept the premise of the poser, might I suggest you ignore it next time? It would save a lot of effort..
Especially if, after a couple of rounds of responses the author/poser makes it clear what the problem is intended to be.
Seriously, you're overthinking this one.
Might it have been more stringent if the basic numbers and relationships remained the same, but the objects of the story were changed to string and such? Sure.
But part of the problem is a sense of aesthetics in the imagery as well, so I am prepared to accept the problem as it was and as it appears to me to continue to be.
3 edits
Originally posted by geepamoogleLet's take a closer look at PBE6's sense of aesthetics, it it's all the same to you :
But part of the problem is a sense of aesthetics in the imagery as well, so I am prepared to accept the problem as it was and as it appears to me to continue to be.
Originally posted by PBE6
"Now THAT would have been funny, but you wrecked it by being serious. 🙄
Please reword the question so that all required information is provided.
Do you ever pump the bishop when posting? I only ask because it seems like the blood rushes out of your head every time you sit down to type.
@ATY: Lol, I guess he didn't see yours.
eldragonfly amuses me to no end. One of these days, he's going to a veritable "Gallagher" on the world comic stage."
You are full of yourself geep. Easier to admit the problem was poorly worded.
Originally posted by eldragonflyWhy then, does it seem to be relatively common that a number of others seem to understand the problem as the poser intended it, but you usually seem to misunderstand the problem and think it poorly worded?
You are full of yourself geep. Easier to admit the problem was poorly worded.
I submit into evidence the rather lengthy fiasco of the probability thread, which was the first time I took note of you.
I would advise you when you are considering a poser submitted by PBE6 that you consider the nature of the problems he poses and look for the simplifying assumptions he is working under, like the majority of browsing forumites here do. If this isn't to your liking, then ignore any threads he posts, and fell free to submit your own if you like.
I would also suggest to you that a beach ball on a string would not float a foot above the water like a flower on a stiff stem would, but that is tangential to the matter at hand.