Maths help two :)

Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
The other thread just reminded me of a question I saw many years ago (In New Scientist IIRC)

Consider the situation...

Imagine a string wrapped all the way around the Earths equator.

Now imagine a second string raised to a point 1M above the earths equator.

Q: How much longer is the second string than the first.

I am not searching for the answer here, simply the method.

What was your solution, and how did you arrive at it?

;) :p
 

D3K

D3K

Soldato
Joined
13 Nov 2014
Posts
3,704
The other thread just reminded me of a question I saw many years ago (In New Scientist IIRC)

Consider the situation...

Imagine a string wrapped all the way around the Earths equator.

Now imagine a second string raised to a point 1M above the earths equator.

Q: How much longer is the second string than the first.

I am not searching for the answer here, simply the method.

What was your solution, and how did you arrive at it?

;) :p
(2*pie*[r+1]) - (2*pie*r)

Where r is the average radius of the earth in metres at the equator.

But if you want to lay the string flat against every nook and cranny of the earth to get a true measurement, good luck :p
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
(2*pie*[r+1]) - (2*pie*r)

Where r is the average radius of the earth in metres at the equator.

But if you want to lay the string flat against every nook and cranny of the earth to get a true measurement, good luck :p


Correct, but too complicated.

There is a simpler way of looking at it ;):p

Thats what I am looking for, not the solution but rather the logic.

:)
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2006
Posts
12,456
Location
Sufferlandria
The equator doesn't have any altitude. There's no such thing as "1 metre above the equator"?
Is it 1m above sea level at the equator or 1m above ground level? They're going to be very different things.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
The equator doesn't have any altitude. There's no such thing as "1 metre above the equator"?
Is it 1m above sea level at the equator or 1m above ground level? They're going to be very different things.
It's a problem to demonstrate that to calculate the change in circumference of a circle as a result of change in diameter/radius doesn't require you to know the original circumference or diameter/radius.

You're looking at it too literally if you're worrying about sea level vs ground level.
 

D3K

D3K

Soldato
Joined
13 Nov 2014
Posts
3,704
Correct, but too complicated.

There is a simpler way of looking at it ;):p

Thats what I am looking for, not the solution but rather the logic.

:)
You want me to factorise it?

2*pie*(r+1/r)

It's a problem to demonstrate that to calculate the change in circumference of a circle as a result of change in diameter/radius doesn't require you to know the original circumference or diameter/radius.

You're looking at it too literally if you're worrying about sea level vs ground level.
You need to know the radius to calculate the specific change. Even if you don't know it, radius/diam is still required in the equation.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Apr 2009
Posts
24,796
You need to know the radius to calculate the specific change. Even if you don't know it, radius/diam is still required in the equation.

If you want to demonstrate working from first principle maybe but once you know that all the original figures drop out, it means you can happily calculate the change in one of those numbers simply by knowing the change in the other.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
If you want to demonstrate working from first principle maybe but once you know that all the original figures drop out, it means you can happily calculate the change in one of those numbers simply by knowing the change in the other.


All the information required is in the question. ;)
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
I was trying to post in a way that didn't just kill the thread half a dozen posts in :p


True

That was my logic when I first saw it. I haven't been told what the earths radius is, therefore it doesn't matter

Once you accept that, the answer is clear.

It is a bit like the "Monty hall" problem.

People feel the need to come up with all sorts of complex arguments to explain how this, apparently, counter intuitive situation can arise.

In fact it isn't complex at all.

The solution is that it has little to do with probability and everything to do with the fact that the game show host knows which doors have the car and which have the Goat!
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2005
Posts
5,006
btw, when you said 'raised to a point 1m above the equator' I thought you meant towards the North Pole, with the second string then being smaller, still wrapped round the earth....missed the fact you said the second string would be bigger!
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
(2*pie*[r+1]) - (2*pie*r)

Where r is the average radius of the earth in metres at the equator.

But if you want to lay the string flat against every nook and cranny of the earth to get a true measurement, good luck :p
That’s what I thought so I’m intrigued as to what the super duper concise answer is.
 
Back
Top Bottom