Why not? It's a fitting conclusion. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
Printable View
Why not? It's a fitting conclusion. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
sorry gumby my theard you cant have the last word
got to go and pick the chilins up:2tsup:
Wongo I agree with you that the answer is 350.:2tsup:
You must read the question carefully. Perhaps the question is a bit difficult for all but the top students aged 11 however this is a maths competition. It is designed for the top competitors.
Students who are more into reading poetry or playing sport might all agree on the wrong answer big deal, they are still wrong. They can come up with all the excuses and all agree these excuses are valid but they are still wrong.
Didn’t everyone except Copernicus think the earth was flat once upon a time?
If you took a survey today, people would say the earth was almost spherical. Could the majority from either era prove their answers? I suggest not.
I suggest that the world might be a better place if ignorant people butted out of things they clearly don’t understand and or are incapable of understanding. If they want to participate in those decisions or activities then take steps to understand the matter at hand rather than criticise those who do understand the topic.
I guess I shouldn’t have drawn politics into this.:B
So am IQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
When I did it it was called Matric and I don't remember my mark.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
I work in a low demographic school so we are not always up there when it comes to academics but here is what happened. 26 kids (top maths group in the 6/7 classes) 5 kids had the right dimentions within 4 minutes, only one managed to convert this to an area within the 6 minute time frame. Another four had it by ten minutes with a few more having the right dimentions by this time. That is where we stopped to discuss the process. Turns out three had got the 500 square cm answer, not because they misinterpreted the english to mean the length of the rectangle is longer than the width but because they got to "The length of the rectangle is 25 cm" and though too easy, I can do this and went off to solve the problem.
It is also interesting that the 5 kids that got the correct length and width within 4 minutes also thought they had finished as they had not continued reading on to actually find out what the question was, they just assumed they needed to find the length and width.
Note that none in the class read "the length of the rectangle is 25cm more than the width" as being "the length of the rectangle is 25cm which is longer than the width".
Kids loved doing it though:2tsup:
I once had to do a aptitude test in applying for a job and the interviewer gave me a sheet of 60 y/n questions to complete in 60 seconds with the instructions to not worry and just do the best I could.
Being of a perverse and backward nature I started over the page at No 60 which read "Put your name at the top of the page and ignore the rest of the questions".
I don't know what it proved but the interviewer said I was the only person he had ever had get it right.:rolleyes:
Excellent!
So what's the next class? Let's see if we can cook up another experiment in child psychology :U
Your not a diplomat are you?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wood Borer
I too read the length is 25 and thought, easy the answers 500. I'd lost many a mark at uni for not reading the question fully.Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnsy
But blitzed my high school maths (like wongo) because we had to solve alpha-numeric equations and not read questions. Thats one of the reasons i still have communication problems.
That is the “trick questions” I was talking about. I proves nothing whatsoever.
rat52, well done to you though.:cool:
Now you are speaking like a woman. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gingermick
WB Check here :qQuote:
Originally Posted by Wood Borer
Hay I first to admit I am !@#$ at math...we are just having fun now..:D :D I wouldnt dare go against Wongo on a math problem, I would lose every time
It proves that I have a problem.
Mick, the maths I did in uni have more numbers and symbols and less words. :oo:
The maths I did at uni did too :)
Gra,Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
Did I lead you to believe that I consider the earth is almost spherical?
Now it's a matter of not only reading the question but reading the comments:q
I know we are having a bit of fun now but my swipe at those making decisions - I was serious.
No Gingermick I am not a diplomat - did it sound out of touch with reality?:o
well done everybody but you all missed the point of the thread it was the debate skills that was on around the breaky table
see we all most had the same debate here and didn't it keep you all going
Gra you played my wife realy well in the renactment:D
gingermick you played my teenage girl
wongo, silentCand others played me to a T
now the girl has a maths problem she wishes a hand with may l :U
No, but I didn't make any presumptions there, all I did was point to a group that disagreed with your statement (I also didn't put my point into the response either) :q:UQuote:
Originally Posted by Wood Borer
Spirit, I hope you wife is much better looking though..:U:U
Give us a kiss and l will see
And for those of you who wish to combine poetry with your maths.....
A mathemetician named Hall
Had a dodecahedronal ball.
The cube of its weight
Plus his pecker times eight
Was 5/8 of 4/5 of his phone number - give him a call.
now that is great 100 post debating maths and grammer what and no padding from the drivel team:oo:
sorry Wongo you padded up
i think i just wasted ten minutes or so reading this...twas quite funny thou.
i got 350 as the answer in 30 seconds or so. i know what you guys mean when you say ppl dont read the question because i do it alot ( i only get 90% ish instead of 100% cos i misread or dont read the question and assume i know what i have to do ).
maths is truly to easy:) ( most of the time - i hate factorising:( lol )
cheers
BTW congrats wongo on ur 100% hsc mark...tis what i aim for in 4 unit maths in two yrs time.
Doing exams is a bit like woodwork
Exams - read the question twice and answer once
Woodwork - measure twice and cut once
Mr C: I'm just glad they're not building my house :U
Would you not get a bigger house? :?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesand
Possibly you would have got a house with a floor area of 350 but an invoice for an area of 500.
Of course if you were mathematically challenged, you would be quite happy with the house and the bill. Ignorance is bliss.:D
I would be happy if it was the other way round but of course the rooms might be the wrong shapesQuote:
Originally Posted by Wood Borer
you get a new maths question tomorrow:D
You'll compromise the drivel channel. What'll we do?:DQuote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
good point you cliff and the others should be able to help with my kids homework:D :U
I am not available tomorrow. I have more important thing to discuss in another forum. :D
:kiss1:Quote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
are you trying to say we are math debating:U:U:UQuote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
width of rectangle = (90 – 2 x 25) /4 = 10 cmQuote:
Originally Posted by SPIRIT
Rectangle is thus 35cm long and 10 cm wide
check the sums — (length + width) x 2 = (35 + 10) x 2 = 90 checks
area = 35 x 10 = 350 cm squared
ian
Ian, where were you when we needed you.:p
Those from Copernious's time couldn't, but it's straight forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wood Borer
A sphere casts a cylindrical shadow no matter what direction it is illuminated from. This is the only shape that does.
During a lunar eclipse the earth's shadow as it passes across the moon is always round. Therefore the earth is a sphere.
AND if you can measure distances along a meridian you can work out the earth's approximate size.
ian
at work!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wongo
where I dare not visit here
ian
In the early days scientists went to still lakes and measured how much "dip" there was from one end of the lake to the other by measuring how far out of sight a graduated object fell. Assuming light travelled in a straight line they were able to calculate the radius of the earth.
This method of course had several problems:
1: It is possible that the atmosphere near the lake had different densities, temperatures etc that could cause refraction (bending of light).
2: It didn't prove the radius of earth was reasonably constant so unless multiple measurements were made in different directions in many places, this method only suggested that the earth's surface was curved.
People who state that they have seen "pictures" of the earth from space could be victims of a photography hoax. For example some Science Fiction pictures seem more realistic than current and past photos from space.
Personally I believe the earth is almost spherical, assuming that it is certainly helped me navigate using a sextant and compass. Unless of course I stuffed up the calculations and by pure chance happened to return.:D
Could I prove it was spherical? Not conclusively. Like many others on this forum I have studied University Maths however I wouldn't bet my LNs that I could prove the earth was round.
By prove I mean a mathematical proof and not an argument that convinces others that I am right.
That assumes that the moon is lit by the sun and not from some other source, such as radioactive cheese.Quote:
A sphere casts a cylindrical shadow no matter what direction it is illuminated from. This is the only shape that does.
During a lunar eclipse the earth's shadow as it passes across the moon is always round. Therefore the earth is a sphere.
It it really is round, wouldn't it make sense to fire the rockets sideways over the Atlantic so the go downhill rather than straight up at the moon. Burn a lot less fuel, surely. Mr C, I never thought of the hot cheese possibility. Is that widely known?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
But wouldn't radioactive cheese cause radio communications problems when we have a full moon? Probably would be called Moon spots.