bit of mathz problem?

You would need to work out population density(less accurate= by country, more accurate = by city), average number of children per household (per country/city). Then you have to work out how many children in the world based on their beliefs actually 'believe' in FC. It's probably a western world thing. Still not do-able.
 
total surface area of the earth is 510 million km squared, of which 29% is land mass equating to 148 million km2.

Figure in the main oceans that he also would have to cross assuming for one pass in each case to switch continents add on another say 26,000km (Atlantic = 5000km, Pacific = 15000km, indian ocean = 6000km)

Approx distance to cover is then 148,026,000 km

Due to time zones we can be generous and say that he has 12 hours but would have to start in Australia.

Needs to cover 12,335,500 km per hour not including chimney time which is 12,335,500,000 m/hour = 3426527 m/s

speed of light is 299792458 m/s

so he needs to travel at about 1.2% of the speed of light. Therefore the theory of santa is at least plausible from a physics perspective with regards to the distance and speed required to get around the world.

Now how he gets his fat arse down a chimney is another matter
 
There are roughly 2 billion children worldwide. However, assuming Santa doesn't visit the children of Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, atheist and so on parents, that leaves the 35 per cent or thereabouts whose parents consider themselves Christian. That's still an impressive 700,000,000 children in a night. Assuming three children per household, that's 233,000,000 stops for Santa and his sleigh.

If we assume that the 233,000,000 good Christian households are distributed evenly around the world , and the planet's surface area is 510,000,000km (and for the sake of simple calculations we are going to treat the Earth as a square map, rather than a globe), then each stop between households will be around 1.47km (0.91 miles) apart. Santa will therefore have to travel a total of 342,510,000km (212,030,000 miles).

If he's clever about it, and travels from east to west with the Sun, maximising his available night-time, Santa has about 32 hours to work with (assuming children sleep for eight hours, he has 24 hours plus those eight to finish). Travelling 342,510,000km in 32 hours equates to a speed of 10,703,437.5km/hr (6,650,807.72mph), or a little under 1,800 miles per second, assuming he takes no time actually to deliver the presents or stop for any comfort breaks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/christmas/6859529/Father-Christmass-Christmas-Eve-in-figures.html

Was about to congratulate you on your work till I realised it was a copy paste :p
 
D1t53Zi.jpg
 
i woke up with a very weird math calculation but no idea why

if santa claus gets around the world in 1 night

how far does he travel in miles?
how fast does he have to go in mph?

anyone fancy giving it a try? :p

this is an NP complete problem, if you solve it you'll get a PhD, likely a Nobel prize and become rather famous
 
Apart from phones, abs, apps, labs, limos, memos, quads, turps, unis, gyms, busses, vets, docs, exams...

You can pluralise things if you have plurals of them...

You dont call a single telephone a "phones"
You dont call a single limousine a "limos"

Just because you shorten a word doesnt mean you should pluralise it.
So why should mathematics be shortened to "maths"?

Depends if it's plural to begin with, I suppose?

(IMO, "maths" is correct because "mathematics" is plural)
 
Last edited:
total surface area of the earth is 510 million km squared, of which 29% is land mass equating to 148 million km2.

Figure in the main oceans that he also would have to cross assuming for one pass in each case to switch continents add on another say 26,000km (Atlantic = 5000km, Pacific = 15000km, indian ocean = 6000km)

Approx distance to cover is then 148,026,000 km

lol, did you really just add km to km^2?! That's appalling.
 
There is a very good argument against it being "maths" over "math".
Usually I'm on the side of anything against Americanisation of words. however the argument is this.

You should never pluralise a shortened word.
Maths is short for mathematics, the word can be shorted to math by you should not then add an "s" to the end.

Would be a good argument if "mathematics" or "maths" were actually a plural.
 
lol, did you really just add km to km^2?! That's appalling.

yep, absolutely outrageous, I completely agree and my maths and physics lecturers of the past are probably turning in their graves. Truth be known i couldn't be arsed to work it out properly because the question of Santa's fat arse fitting in a chimney can never be resolved thus the distance he has to cover is neither here nor there :D
 
You can pluralise things if you have plurals of them...

You dont call a single telephone a "phones"
You dont call a single limousine a "limos"

Just because you shorten a word doesnt mean you should pluralise it.
So why should mathematics be shortened to "maths"?

Depends if it's plural to begin with, I suppose?

(IMO, "maths" is correct because "mathematics" is plural)

It was more the point that you can't pluralise a shortened word that I disagreed with.

Not sure I consider mathematics a plural though. It's a word in it's own right, with it's own definition. From an origin point of view, isn't it similar to physics?

Physical Science = physics
Mathematical Science = mathematics
 
Not sure I consider mathematics a plural though. It's a word in it's own right, with it's own definition. From an origin point of view, isn't it similar to physics?

Physical Science = physics
Mathematical Science = mathematics

The origins are both plural too and should be Physical Sciences and Mathematical Sciences.
 
Back
Top Bottom