User Controls
A trianglism math question for those who are worthy.
-
2016-09-10 at 4:16 AM UTCIntroduction: A crescent hemisphere. It's not a complete sphere. Lol. (Credits to Roshambo)
Challenge: Figure out how many triangles are in a crescent made out of separated rectangular prisms with the number of chambers Min=1, Max=88. The volume of the prisms has to be accounted for, not only the surface area. The answer should be in the least amount of triangles possible. -
2016-09-10 at 4:56 AM UTCi tried to draw this and had a religious aexperience
-
2016-09-10 at 3:42 PM UTCHint: if you can solve for one compartment you can solve for them all
-
2016-09-11 at 3:39 AM UTCSince everyone here is going absolutely plebeian I took the liberty to show why 1 + 2 = 3
-
2016-09-11 at 8:28 AM UTCwut
-
2016-09-11 at 5:45 PM UTCI. Folding a cube then filling it
II. If each face of the cube is a square based pyramid, then once you fill the pyramids and fold the cube together, all the pyramids go inside the cube and fill the space without any overlap or emptiness
III. If you only make 4 faces square based pyramids, and just turn the other two squares into triangles, once you fold the cube together and fill it, it is the exact same as a square based pyramid on all 6 faces. The reason for that is, the 4 square based pyramids shape the empty space into 2 more square based pyramids, which once filled is the exact same as step II but requiring less triangles. So there are 28 triangles in one chamber,
IV. To figure out how many chambers are in a crescent of Min1 Max88, you calculate the sum of consecutive integers of 1-88 and 1-87, because 1-88-1 is (1-88)(87-1).
V. Add together the sum of consecutive integers and then multiply it by the 28 faces in every compartment.
-
2016-09-11 at 6:27 PM UTC
-
2016-09-11 at 7:01 PM UTCty bro
-
2016-09-11 at 7:18 PM UTCHere's a sciencism question instead. If we express the strength of gravity in meter's per second squared and the strength of gravity on the earth is 9,807 m/s² and we take into account that the strength of a force is inversely proportional to the distance from the object exerting the force, squared. Then what would be the strength of the gravity of the planet Earth as measured from the distance of the Moon(384.400 km)?
-
2016-09-11 at 7:23 PM UTC
Here's a sciencism question instead. If we express the strength of gravity in meter's per second squared and the strength of gravity on the earth is 9,807 m/s² and we take into account that the strength of a force is inversely proportional to the distance from the object exerting the force, squared. Then what would be the strength of the gravity of the planet Earth as measured from the distance of the Moon(384.400 km)?
is this how you save face -
2016-09-11 at 7:24 PM UTC
cruz is straight mucinex -
2016-09-11 at 7:35 PM UTC
Here's a sciencism question instead. If we express the strength of gravity in meter's per second squared and the strength of gravity on the earth is 9,807 m/s² and we take into account that the strength of a force is inversely proportional to the distance from the object exerting the force, squared. Then what would be the strength of the gravity of the planet Earth as measured from the distance of the Moon(384.400 km)?
What happens if you drop a pen on the moon? (80% of Americans don't know the correct answer to this question) -
2016-09-11 at 7:39 PM UTC
is this how you save face
Is this how you avoid a real question? -
2016-09-11 at 7:39 PM UTC
What happens if you drop a pen on the moon? (80% of Americans don't know the correct answer to this question)
It falls. -
2016-09-11 at 7:49 PM UTC
Here's a sciencism question instead. If we express the strength of gravity in meter's per second squared and the strength of gravity on the earth is 9,807 m/s² and we take into account that the strength of a force is inversely proportional to the distance from the object exerting the force, squared. Then what would be the strength of the gravity of the planet Earth as measured from the distance of the Moon(384.400 km)?
if the force is inversely proportional to distance does that mean if the distance is x then the force is -x m/s2, is there some ratio to convert them or is it a 1:-1 correspondence, or by squared do you mean that if the distance is x then the force is (-x2)m/s2 -
2016-09-11 at 7:59 PM UTC
if the force is inversely proportional to distance does that mean if the distance is x then the force is -x m/s2, is there some ratio to convert them or is it a 1:-1 correspondence, or by squared do you mean that if the distance is x then the force is (-x2)m/s2
Inversely proportional squared means that if a force has a strength of X from this distance it becomes 4 times weaker when you're twice as far away. -
2016-09-11 at 8:02 PM UTC
What happens if you drop a pen on the moon? (80% of Americans don't know the correct answer to this question)
the person at the bottom was a Swedish girl and I got her kik because I know some random words in Swedish lmao. She is also very sexy, will post pics.
-
2016-09-11 at 8:09 PM UTCNiggas in space are officially the highest IQ sub culture on the entire internet.
-
2016-09-11 at 8:17 PM UTC
Inversely proportional squared means that if a force has a strength of X from this distance it becomes 4 times weaker when you're twice as far away.
If it's 9,807 at 0 distance then how can I calculate that at 384.4km?. Twice as far away from 0 distance is 0 distance. If you said 9,807 at 10km distance, i would've been like 9,807/4 = 20km, 9,807/16 = 40km, 9,807/64 = 80km. -
2016-09-11 at 8:34 PM UTCSploo you could probably work for NASA and be a literal rocket scientist and calculate how much thrust is needed to send shit into orbit. Work for SpaceX and shit.
