MHB Jack and Jane: Same Height, Different Growth

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeanaLerner
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Growth Height
AI Thread Summary
Jack's height increases by 15%, resulting in a new height of 5.75 ft. To find Jane's original height, represented as "h," the equation h(1.15) = 5.75 is used. Solving for h gives Jane's height as 5 ft. The discussion clarifies the calculation of percentage increase in height. Ultimately, Jane remains at her original height while Jack experiences growth.
LeanaLerner
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Suppose Jack and Jane are the same height, and Jack's height increases by 15% to 5.75 ft. If Jane does not grow, what is her height?Thank you in advance for your help and time.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
let $h$ represent Jack and Jane’s original same height ...

$h(1.15)=5.75$

solve for $h$
 
Expanding on what Skeeter said: If Jack's original height is "X" and increases by "15% of Jack's height" then it increases by 0.15X. So Jack's new height is X+ 0.15X= (1.00+ 0.15)X= 1.15X.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top