Short mind boggling questions

[Evo]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

Like people said, he obviously didn't marry her for her mind. :rofl:

 

[QuarkCharmer]

A cylindrical hole is drilled diametrically through a sphere. If the height of the cylindrical wall generated is L, what's the volume of the remaining material?

Doesn't that depend on the radius of the drill?

$$\frac{4}{3}πr^{2} - LπR^{2}$$
where r is the radius of the sphere, and 2R is the diameter of the drill bit?For that infinite grid resistor question, you need to start with 1 square of resistors R, consider it's resistance, then add iterative layers of squares and check formulate the question by series.

 

[Borg]

Like people said, he obviously didn't marry her for her mind. :rofl:

Isn't she a legislator in Tennessee? Then again, probably not - she's smarter than that.

 

[emailanmol]

I have another one.

Suppose there are x players and you want to hold a singles tennis tournament amongst them in a fair way.

What is the minimum number of matches the tournament should consist of?

Post your logic.

P.S

Fair means that each player should lose to exit.
Also least amount of Bye should occur

 

[emailanmol]

Does someone have a link to the solution of infinite resistance network.?

 

[Borg]

How many pairs of shoes can one woman own?

I know, there isn't a solution because whatever the number, the answer is always one more.

 

[DragonPetter]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

Is this supposed to be so simple to confuse you of the obvious answer?

 

[Gokul43201]

Doesn't that depend on the radius of the drill?

The question is complete. Perhaps I can clarify a little bit by calling the cylindrical hole a cylindrical through-hole (think of the guy that's digging a tunnel through the center of the earth).

Your attempt (ignoring the typo in the formula for the volume of a sphere) is missing the volume of the two "polar caps" that are lost as well. And of course, it's relying on numbers not provided in the question.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Does someone have a link to the solution of infinite resistance network.?

Yeah
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

Your attempt (ignoring the typo in the formula for the volume of a sphere) is missing the volume of the two "polar caps" that are lost as well. And of course, it's relying on numbers not provided in the question.

Oh I see what you mean.

 

[Borg]

Is this supposed to be so simple to confuse you of the obvious answer?

Only if you're blonde.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

 

[emailanmol]

A cylindrical hole is drilled diametrically through a sphere. If the height of the cylindrical wall generated is L, what's the volume of the remaining material?

I know the answer.Classic Problem

 

[emailanmol]

Yeah
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

Thanks a lot :-)

Divine intervention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSSzjgVl9RM

OMG! Hahahaha.
This is epic.

 

[Chi Meson]

Here's an oldie I really love: You're in a room with 2 doors and 2 guards. One of the doors leads to freedom, the other to death, you don't know which is which. One of the guards always tells the truth the always lies but you don't know which guard is which.

You are allowed to ask one of the guards one question to gain your freedom. What do you ask?

You ask one guard what the other guard would say if you asked him which door leads to freedom.

NOPE!
(cue XKCD again!)
http://xkcd.com/246/

 

[Dadface]

If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, then how long will it take for a cockroach to kick all the seeds out of a cucumber?

Is the answer Belgium?

 

[BobG]

What is $$\frac{\pi L^3}{6}$$

 

[Gokul43201]

What is $$\frac{\pi L^3}{6}$$

Nice work. How did you solve it?

 

[BobG]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

Then I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius equal to the radius of the sphere, in which case, the sphere ceases to exist, the length of the hole is 0, and the remaining volume of the nonexistant sphere is 0.

Then I imagined all the possible radii for the hole in between 0 and the radius of the sphere.

Or, in English, I used the washer method of integration using the radius of the sphere (R) and the radius of the hole (r). Your limits of integration can be from -x to x (with x calculated from R and r using the Pythagorean theorem) or, since spheres are symmetrical, from 0 to x and then just double the volume (the latter means less arithmetic).

$$V = \frac{4 \pi (R^2 - r^2)^{3/2}}{3}$$

The length of the hole (using the Pythagorean theorem) is:
$$L = 2 \sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$$

Substituted L into the original solution.

It would be a very hard problem if you started with L and tried to solve it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

This is really all you need to do to solve the question, especially given my confirmation that the answer was independent of the radius of the hole.

Or, in English, I used the washer method of integration using the radius of the sphere (R) and the radius of the hole (r). Your limits of integration can be from -x to x (with x calculated from R and r using the Pythagorean theorem) or, since spheres are symmetrical, from 0 to x and then just double the volume (the latter means less arithmetic).

$$V = \frac{4 \pi (R^2 - r^2)^{3/2}}{3}$$

The length of the hole (using the Pythagorean theorem) is:
$$L = 2 \sqrt{R^2 - r^2}$$

Substituted L into the original solution.

The washer method is nice. Didn't think of that.

It would be a very hard problem if you started with L and tried to solve it.

Not really (or maybe I'm just making excuses for my inelegance). That's how I double-checked that the question was indeed legit. All you have to do is calculate the volume of a "polar cap", and that takes maybe a couple minutes or so.

 

[BobG]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

Then I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius equal to the radius of the sphere, in which case, the sphere ceases to exist, the length of the hole is 0, and the remaining volume of the nonexistant sphere is 0.

Then I imagined all the possible radii for the hole in between 0 and the radius of the sphere.

This is really all you need to do to solve the question, especially given my confirmation that the answer was independent of the radius of the hole.

This is true. I felt I needed a more formal way to prove my intuition was right for all the in-between stuff, as well. But the math is easier when you already know how you want the answer to look.

 

[DaveC426913]

By what stretch of the imagination is this "art"?

Alow me to defend it for a moment.

Modern art is not about pretty and aesthetically pleasing. Well arranged flowers and sunsets.

It is about ideas and conversation. And it must be experienced IRL (in real life). Because you're going to ask yourself things like: Do the details in the pic evoke anything in you? Recognize anything from your own room? Has the artist managed capture the essence of a messy bed that a remarkable number of us can relate to? Does it repulse you? Or does it comfort you?
None of the above? What does it make you think of? (Not the piece, or the price tag - what does the content make you think of?)

 

[Gokul43201]

I think we're gradually blurring the meaning of art so it will soon be hard to identify anything as 'not art'.

Today a picture of a messy bedroom is art. Tomorrow, the messy bedroom itself will be considered art.

 

[netgypsy]

Knowing how many Trekkies are out there I'm most interested in conclusions that have been reached on this question. Assuming one could be "beamed up" like in "Beam me up Scotty", obviously the entire pattern of atoms in your body is recorded, disassembled, then reassembled in that precise pattern. the question is, if it happened to you, when you were reassembled, would you still be on the inside looking out?

And one could take this one step further. If you were accidentally reassembled twice, which one would you be inside looking out of? One, none or both??

Assuming the answer is none, who would be inside the newly reassembled being?? Physically speaking would it be alive? If not why not?

And I'm interested in this problem from the point of view of physics, not philosophy or religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a concept close to my heart. I am fascinated with stories having to do with identity.

Think like a Dinosaur, Kelly
Mindscan, Sawyer
Terminal Experiment, Sawyer
ST:TNG: Second Chances

when you were reassembled, would you still be on the inside looking out?

Yes. If who we are is an emergent property of our brains, then a copy of our brains is also us.

And one could take this one step further. If you were accidentally reassembled twice, which one would you be inside looking out of? One, none or both??

Each would view themselves as the original.

And I'm interested in this problem from the point of view of physics, not philosophy or religion.

Which is why the answers are so easy. We are the sum total of our physical bodies. Reassembling our bodies, whether singularly or plural, means we have reassembled ourselves.

 

[OmCheeto]

...ST:TNG: ...

Which is why the answers are so easy. We are the sum total of our physical bodies. Reassembling our bodies, whether singularly or plural, means we have reassembled ourselves.

What if, when being transported, you started to clip your too long fingernails?

Would the transporter computer see this as an error in replication on reassembly?

hmmm...

I love short, mind boggling, trekkian, questions.

 

[netgypsy]

This bothers me because Identical twins aren't both on the inside of both bodies looking out. The are identical but separate. Assuming you could be reassembled twice at exactly the same time from exactly the same pattern I still can't perceive that you would be inside both bodies looking at yourself or even being able to switch back and forth. Clones are incredibly close but not the same consciousness. it's true you couldn't be assembled at the same place as well as at the same time but I somehow suspect that if you were disassembled you would be no longer there period. You would "die". And the reassembled "clone" for want of a better term would be your twin but not you. But the weirdest part of the whole thing is that this twin would have all your memories, perceptions, thought processes and so on but i think it would be your identical clone, not you. Why? because this identical individual could be created without taking you apart. And there's no reason to assume that you could somehow jump from the original to the new one just because you were disassembled or "killed" for want of a better term. And when the new one is created I can't see that you would be both at one time. Of course there is anecdotal evidence that identical twins perceive experiences of the other twin but I'd have to see a real study with documentation using brain responses and so on to convince me of this. Because if this is really true, there is an actually cerebral connection between two pretty much identical individuals it's as though consciousness can jump from one to another - as though it's split but connected. Twin studies are interesting for sure. I do know that people who spend a huge amount of time together in a harmonious relationship gradually begin to function in a very similar fashion, so much so that outsiders think they are blood relatives in appearance even, when upon close study they are quite different physically. It's as though the two have been mixed together in a big blender, then separated back into two and now to be almost the same person.

Any twin studies on a long distance cerebral connection and if so , how does this happen? Somewhat connected to this is the ability of a school of fish or herd of animals to move simultaneously when obviously not all the individuals perceived the threat, barrier, whatever caused the direction change. I need to look for studies on this phenomenon as I've seen it myself.

Regarding making a change during transport unless you were taken apart instantaneously it would horrendously painful so hardly a time to be grooming.

 

[ThomasT]

hi all,
i want you to post best mind boggling/twisting questions you know of.
Thanks
dpa

What is it, exactly, wrt Bell-type LR formulations of quantum entanglement, that causes Bell inequality violations?

 

[ThomasT]

Why is it that sometimes my pain pills work one day and not the next for the same symptom?

I'm genuinely sorry to hear that you require pain medication. But how, exactly, does one get pain medication? I've experienced some rather severely painful intervals during flareups of my ulcerative colitis/Crohn's disease, but the VA is quite reluctant to administer pain medication. Anyway, it's in remission now so no problem. My generic pain medication is brewsky.

Apparently, from what I gather, real pain medication is sort of inversely effective. The more you take, the more you need.

Please be careful with the stuff, as I trust you are.

And, wrt the thread topic, I'm willing to bet that the OP can't answer any of the sorts of questions he/she's asking for.

 

[skippy1729]

A short mind boggling answer:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.

Yogi Berra

 

[ThomasT]

A short mind boggling answer:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.

Yogi Berra

Ok, so, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there's often a difference between theory and practice. But it's practice, not theory, that decides the truth of things. Fact: theories are sometimes wrong. So, the theory that there's no difference between theory and practice is wrong.

Yogi should have reasoned this out before making his statement. But, as we all know, Yogi's statements weren't intended to inform, but, rather, to entertain.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok, so, in theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there's often a difference between theory and practice. But it's practice, not theory, that decides the truth of things. Fact: theories are sometimes wrong. So, the theory that there's no difference between theory and practice is wrong.

Well, in theory at least..

 

[DaveC426913]

Wait. What? When did we start talking about two individuals having some sort of connection?

This bothers me because Identical twins aren't both on the inside of both bodies looking out. The are identical but separate. Assuming you could be reassembled twice at exactly the same time from exactly the same pattern I still can't perceive that you would be inside both bodies looking at yourself or even being able to switch back and forth.

You wouldn't! Where did you get this idea?

Clones are incredibly close but not the same consciousness. it's true you couldn't be assembled at the same place as well as at the same time but I somehow suspect that if you were disassembled you would be no longer there period. You would "die". And the reassembled "clone" for want of a better term would be your twin but not you.

Define "you" in a rational way.

"You" is the collection of molecules that makes up your brain/body.

But the weirdest part of the whole thing is that this twin would have all your memories, perceptions, thought processes and so on but i think it would be your identical clone, not you.

Wait. When did we start talking about clones? That's a completely different beast. A clone does not share anything with the original except DNA.

OK, I see. You're using the term "clone" loosely.

If you were transported and duplicated, there would be no original, there would be two copies. this is actually what you were saying just above. "You" cease to be while the machine is disassembling and reassembling. But when it's done, there are two identical collections of molecules in the shape of "you", neither of which can claim to be the original. The ST:TNG ep 'Second Chances' is an excellent example of this. Both Rykers are equally the original. Both have completely consistent memories culminating in the present. Neither has any claim to being more original than the other.

 

[netgypsy]

As was said, the point is, if this could be done, two new identical consciousnesses would be created but "you" would no long exist in the sense that I am now inside my body looking out, as this would cease if I were disassembled, and would not be recovered in the two new identicals. So now the question is WHY?

The twin study of long distance communication between two DNA identicals besides cell phone would be quite interesting. I do not at this point have any data that leads me to believe it can happen but I do feel there are refinements of the senses, combinations of them and so on that we don't have data on yet that cause fish, flocks and herds to act as a unit rather than an individual.

One more interesting ramification of the disassembly and reassembly, if two new identicals were produced, could the family, spouse, children tell that the original was gone and how might they deal with having two where there was one.

Which leads to another interesting question - cells divide by binary fission so I see no immediate reason why an entire human couldn't do the same and produce two where there is now one using this method. (To add to the mix, I seem to recall a study which indicated memory can be passed on by eating part of an individual - the study was with lower order species but a behavior was trained, then the trained individual was fed to the untrained which then exhibited the behavior of the trained individual.) Of course there are technical difficulties in a case like this, but assuming it could be done, which one would the original "be inside looking out of"? Or would the original "die" and why? Again, from a physical point of view.

 

[netgypsy]

With regard to the pain medication this is a question that has been asked many doctors and researchers and they have some very interesting answers.

First of all the more anxious and stimulated the individual is, the more difficult it is to both sedate and relieve pain in that individual. When a friend was quite small she went into surgery to have her tonsils out and she was so stressed she could not be sedated enough to lose consciousness. Her mother was actually present and saw this.

Why is this true? It seems that pain medications don't directly stop pain but rather cause the body to produce its own chemicals which then stop the pain. So anything that interferes with the body's production of these chemicals will stop the pain meds from working.

Another friend went to a pain clinic to deal with chronic pain issues. There were several aspects in the treatment including physical and psychological.

For physical problems the line of first defense you might say was ice. Ice was the number 1 most successful treatment for all sorts of pain. It even works on migraines although it makes them worse for the first five minutes so I don't use it unless I'm totally desperate. The second was distraction. When the individual is participating in something which requires focus, the pain moves to the background and simply becomes less important.

Another facet of the treatment was dealing with fear concerning the cause of the pain. When I had braces and the arch wire was changed my entire jaw throbbed for about 24 hours but as I had no fear about the cause of the pain I was able to ignore it. If the source of the pain is well known and not any health danger, then hypnosis can be used again to help the body help itself. (I discovered that if I took ibuprofen 30 minutes before I went to the orthodontist it pretty much stopped the problem.)

So the main medical problem with pain is inflammation but unless you deal with all the other issues connected with the pain including the cause, it can't be controlled to the point where you get your life back.

So assuming all the other issues have been dealt with, there is no fear connected with the pain and no health issues that are life threatening, how can one deal with the inflammation?

Ice does reduce inflammation of all sorts.

Anti inflammatories do this also and there are many of these from the NSAIDS to low doses of antibiotics like erythromicin and several others (40mg vs 500mg for killing bacteria), and prescription opiates, muscle relaxants and so on.

DMSO liquid or gel, which is topical and cheap and does not affect the liver or digestive system generally (the smell is weird and really bothers some people - I just mouth breathe) and is a very very strong spot anti inflammatory (google it and ask your doctor because it's only "on label" for interstitial cyctitis) for things like smashing your thumb with a hammer. It can relieve inflammation so well that a dead lame horse will be walking by the next day. (obviously the horse has no broken bones or torn soft tissue)

You can only use it on a clean, chemical free area because it takes other chemicals into the body with it. It's used on horses quite often to take antibiotics and things like topical cortisone into injured areas and it's used IV in animals for catastrophic problems and after surgery. You can smell it a block away.

So there are many many reasons pain meds don't always work and one of the best things that can be done is to deal with the pain before it becomes unbearable, not after.

Dentists can tell you a great deal about pain and pain management because they won't have any patients if they can't manage pain. Mine told me that regular dentists frequently reach a point where they cannot control the pain and they have to send their patient to a specialist who has a lot more weapons to deal with it.

So those of you who have this inconsistent response to pain meds - there's a very good reason for it.

 

[DaveC426913]

As was said, the point is, if this could be done, two new identical consciousnesses would be created but "you" would no long exist in the sense that I am now inside my body looking out, as this would cease if I were disassembled, and would not be recovered in the two new identicals.

Yes it would. You asked for physics, not philosophy or religion. Any identical copy of your body and brain will truly be "you". Multiple copies will all be "you".

The twin study of long distance communication between two DNA identicals besides cell phone would be quite interesting.

Not if you want to stick to your original tenet of 'phyics please, not philosophy or religion'. It would be a very short discussion.

I do not at this point have any data that leads me to believe it can happen

Yes. This should have a period on the end, and a paragraph break.

but I do feel there are refinements of the senses, combinations of them and so on that we don't have data on yet that cause fish, flocks and herds to act as a unit rather than an individual.

What? Of course we do.

One more interesting ramification of the disassembly and reassembly, if two new identicals were produced, could the family, spouse, children tell that the original was gone

They're not gone.

Which leads to another interesting question - cells divide by binary fission so I see no immediate reason why an entire human couldn't do the same and produce two where there is now one using this method.

You don't see any reason? humans - heck, vertebrates - are vastly more complex than single celled organisms. It's like saying I can walk to the store so I see no reason why I can't walk to A. Centauri. Walking does not scale up.

(To add to the mix, I seem to recall a study which indicated memory can be passed on by eating part of an individual - the study was with lower order species but a behavior was trained, then the trained individual was fed to the untrained which then exhibited the behavior of the trained individual.)

Yes. Flatworms.

No. Chopping up humans and feeding them to other humans does not imbue the cannibals with the memories of the hapless victims.

Flatworms don't have brains. They're a walk to the store. It is not simply a matter of "scaling up" to more complex organisms - any more than getting to A.Centauri is a scaling up of the walk to the store.

 

[netgypsy]

Yes it would. You asked for physics, not philosophy or religion. Any identical copy of your body and brain will truly be "you". Multiple copies will all be "you".
Not if it was created at different place or different time. What makes me, me, is physical. The fact that I'm inside looking out is physical. So why should I not be inside all of them looking out? Because they were created at a different time or place? I don't consider the fact that I'm "inside" this body looking out to be religious or philosophical. I consider it to be a physical fact. I stick my finger and it hurts. I'm inside looking out. That's physical. We don't adequately understand how we get inside one entity but why does the fact that we don't understand it make it "not physical". We don't understand a lot of things but that doesn't mean they aren't physical.


Not if you want to stick to your original tenet of 'phyics please, not philosophy or religion'. It would be a very short discussion.

A twin study would be done using PET or MRI and determining if there is a physical connection over a distance. It may have already been done but I haven't read about it. Not that difficult. What does it have to do with religion or philosophy?


Yes. This should have a period on the end, and a paragraph break.

And your point is?


What? Of course we do.

Then please share the study that indicates how multiple members of flocks and herds react at the same time when all cannot see or hear the the disturbance that caused the deviation in the first place.




They're not gone.

I'm dead according to the definition of dead meaning my physical body is no longer a functioning organism. The duplicates are not even identical if they aren't created at the same place in the same time. Any time delay between destruction and creation of the organism will have an effect.


You don't see any reason? humans - heck, vertebrates - are vastly more complex than single celled organisms. It's like saying I can walk to the store so I see no reason why I can't walk to A. Centauri. Walking does not scale up.

Don't assume that I don't know the difference between a single cell and human/vertebrate. Theoretically is there a reason this cannot be done? Is there a law of physics that would violated?


Yes. Flatworms.

No. Chopping up humans and feeding them to other humans does not imbue the cannibals with the memories of the hapless victims.

Flatworms don't have brains. They're a walk to the store. It is not simply a matter of "scaling up" to more complex organisms - any more than getting to A.Centauri is a scaling up of the walk to the store.

And I never indicated that feeding the brains of humans to other humans would impart knowledge from the source brain to the receptor brain. I brought up the study because it was interesting. You drew the conclusion, not I. But as we study memory is there any law of physics violated by the concept that memory can be transferred from one individual to another?