Solve this

[compuadmin]

Supposing a clock takes 7 seconds to strike 7, how long will the same clock take to strike 10?

[kadghar]

Supposing a clock takes 7 seconds to strike 7, how long will the same clock take to strike 10?

3 secs (it's already in 7)

[DeMan]

8.5714285714285714285714285714286 seconds (approx)

[kadghar]

8.5714285714285714285714285714286 seconds (approx)

Ô_o really??

well i wasnt that far from it...(it took me over than 5 secs to write this, so i dont think its a big difference)

[DeMan]

Actually, I had the numbers the wrong way around, it should be :
11.66666666666secs

(Double Check)....7 strikes in 7 secs, means we have a strike every 7/6 seconds (the first one at 0, then 7/6, then 14/6, then 21/6. then 28/6, then 35/6 then 42/6)

for 10 seconds then, we need 7/6 * 10 = 70/6 = 11 4/6 = 11 2/3

(last time I went 6/7 not 7/6 OOPS - my bad)

[kadghar]

Actually, I had the numbers the wrong way around, it should be :
11.66666666666secs

(Double Check)....7 strikes in 7 secs, means we have a strike every 7/6 seconds (the first one at 0, then 7/6, then 14/6, then 21/6. then 28/6, then 35/6 then 42/6)

for 10 seconds then, we need 7/6 * 10 = 70/6 = 11 4/6 = 11 2/3

(last time I went 6/7 not 7/6 OOPS - my bad)

Ô_o

why are you starting at cero?? the first one is in 1 sec, so it'll take 1 per second and there you go!! Just supose that you start taking the time right after an strike.

You dont have to make things that complex...

[DeMan]

How do you know when to start counting the time?
If you were timing how long it took to strike x, wouldn't you start your stopwatch on the first strike?

[kadghar]

How do you know when to start counting the time?
If you were timing how long it took to strike x, wouldn't you start your stopwatch on the first strike?

noup, actually i'd start it right after the last strike im not going to count.

parsimony ;)

[DeMan]

haha

But that would mean you would (potentially) have almost and hour spare in your time......

eg
Imagine you want to count how long it takes to strike 10:00. The last strike you don't want to count, would've been at a few seconds after nine........That could skew your result.....
;)

[kadghar]

haha

But that would mean you would (potentially) have almost and hour spare in your time......

eg
Imagine you want to count how long it takes to strike 10:00. The last strike you don't want to count, would've been at a few seconds after nine........That could skew your result.....
;)

Parcimony in maths (as in allmost every science) is the preference for the least complex explanation for an observation, I mean, if you can explain something in an easy and in a difficult way, Always choose the simple one.

And as we are talking in theory, .999999999999999999 (periodic) equals 1... so you don really have an skewed result. (but an easier one)

[DeMan]

This thread is fast becoming a little too philosophical BUT, shouldn't we only choose the simplest answer if it is correct?

More to the point, given that the question does allow for some interpretation, shouldn't we take the simplest explanation to reach our answer, rather than the simplest answer , that is, that we started timing when we heard the first bell toll, and finished on the last?

:D

[bartonc]

This thread is fast becoming a little too philosophical BUT, shouldn't we only choose the simplest answer if it is correct?

More to the point, given that the question does allow for some interpretation, shouldn't we take the simplest explanation to reach our answer, rather than the simplest answer , that is, that we started timing when we heard the first bell toll, and finished on the last?

:D

You are DeMan, and I so agree!