Recent content by PeroK

Not everyone is suited to academic learning. You may not have done anything wrong. Just struggled with something you find hard. Some people are naturally sporting, musical, artistic or good at chess. We don't expect everyone to do all these things. It's true that getting good grades is...

The former. The intention was that the speed of light was ##c##, as suggested by Maxwell's equations, in all inertial reference frames Einstein chose to say this through two postulates. You could argue that the second postulate alone infers invariance. The invariance of the speed of light...

Can you explain how those calculations work?

I think, from a logical point of view, the invariance of the speed of light is equivalent to both original postulates. Strictly speaking, in might not be possible to derive invariance from the second postulate alone. There are two postulates, in any case.

www.physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/teaching/Lorentz.pdf Here's a derivation from first principles. That seems a more modern approach than was possible in 1905.

Identifying the 7 categories first is a good start.

PS the key factor is how many spaces are adjacent to the modern art pieces. If they are together at the end, there is only one space (where no portrait may go). If neither is at the end and they have more than one space between them, there are four spaces where no portrait may go.

Here's how I did it. Temporarily take the two modern art pieces as indistinguishable. We can multiply by 2 at the end. There are 66 different possibilities for their position. These must be handled separately depending on: Whether one or both are at the ends. How far apart they are: next to...

The answer I got was ##(224 \times 9!) \times 6##. Given that the total number of permutations is ##12!\times 6##, that gives the probability that no portrait is next to a modern art piece of about 0.17. Given a random permutation. Which seems about right.

Looks difficult! I can't immediately see a shortcut. Focus on the two modern art pieces, perhaps?

The rule is that no portrait is adjacent to a modern art piece?

This answer makes no sense to me. Check your transcription of the question.

The question makes no sense. There are no modern paintings in the exhibition.

Are "modern" and "abstract" paintings the same thing. Can a portrait be adjacent to a modern art piece?

I saw him on stage twice. Once as Vladimir, in Waiting for Godot, alongside Ian McKellen, Simon Callow (the best Pozzo I've ever seen) and Ronald Pickup (Lucky). To be honest, I thought he was a bit miscast as a tramp! They played it a bit too much like Laurel and Hardy, until Lucky's speech...