zen Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 You forgot to account for this item - Jack and Jill's speeds are assuming they are running without having to carry anything. So when they are carrying water their speeds will be lesser....lol ah ha, see even I forgot the catch in my own question and assumed that speed given would have to be assumed to be the same Now the new question, with the load what if Jack runs slower :hmmmm: .... may be weighs should be give too :P
zen Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Check the battery on your sarcasm detector. :headshake: "I love reading such posts .... "
nikred Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 You forgot to account for this item - Jack and Jill's speeds are assuming they are running without having to carry anything. So when they are carrying water their speeds will be lesser....lol Why would they be carrying water? OK, I am not clear on "the fetch". What constitutes the fetch. Is it them returning back to where they started or just drawing water from the well?
urbestfriend Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 rett, who is said to have poor math skills attempts his own grade 2 question: Jack (whether a human or cheetah) runs @ 100 kmph Jill (see above) runs @ 80 kmph distance to the well = 1 km total distance = 2 kms should take the avg of Jack and Jill's speed? :hmmmm: .............. ............ Nah, Jack will have to run slowly as Jill can't run faster than 80kmph, so the time taken by both of fetch a pale of water would be the same time Jill would take :two_thumbs_up: I disagree...Jack can run at 100kmph and reach the well much before Jill reach there and fetch the water from the well, so that when Jill reaches there they can start carrying back.
zen Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 At this rate answering questions would be easier than framing them :giggle:
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 Hope you are not serious!! .... In the step you are talking abt, the zero above gets cancelled by the zero below The problem is in division by zero is not defined (seen in the previous step(s) to the one you are pointing at) I.e. (10*10) - (10*10) divided by 10(10-10) Ps shocked by the math fail displayed here, I even didn't use the :haha: smileys You can't cancel out the zeros! that it self makes it indeterminate. anyway, Yes the problem is in the step above the step I was pointing at.
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 :laugh: BTW, wasn't transparent boasting about his difficult Engineering major a few days back? despo much? mr. Mongia > Sachin...
Stuge Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 lol so these people are assuming adding zero to 10 = 0 hahaha ..:hysterical:
akshayxyz Posted December 19, 2011 Author Posted December 19, 2011 ^ You can say they are ignorant, but not stupid. Everyone calculated correctly according to the rules they knew :).
mishra Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 how about this ? Isnt that calculas applied on normal absolute maths... It is correct if denominator (10-10) tends to zero and not equals to zero..... You can get any result by multiplying bot numeratotor and denominator with that number and then taking it inside the bracket of (10-10) in denominator
mishra Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 ICF girls will ask what is the value of ilovedhoni?
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 ICF girls will ask what is the value of ilovedhoni? There are none. all boys in disguise :facepalm:
akshayxyz Posted December 19, 2011 Author Posted December 19, 2011 Isnt that calculas applied on normal absolute maths... It is correct if denominator (10-10) tends to zero and not equals to zero..... You can get any result by multiplying bot numeratotor and denominator with that number and then taking it inside the bracket of (10-10) in denominator :hmmmm: Kindly explain. I guess you want to refer to L'Hopital's .. but that is far from the case here.
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 :hmmmm: Kindly explain. I guess you want to refer to L'Hopital's .. but that is far from the case here. limits? limit x-->0... you can have 0.00000000000000009 or w/e instead of 0. but if 10=x limit x--> 0 would still make it (x-x) = 0
akshayxyz Posted December 19, 2011 Author Posted December 19, 2011 limits? limit x-->0... you can have 0.00000000000000009 or w/e instead of 0. but if 10=x limit x--> 0 would still make it (x-x) = 0 I guess you did not read my reference to L'Hopital's. but that is not the case here.
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 I guess you did not read my reference to L'Hopital's. but that is not the case here. ha bhai...shanti se baat nahi kar sakte kya? let me know and I'll stop quoting you.
akshayxyz Posted December 19, 2011 Author Posted December 19, 2011 ha bhai...shanti se baat nahi kar sakte kya? let me know and I'll stop quoting you. arey tau, I asked what mishra jee is thinking, I got the reference to the limits... So.. you did not add anything new there.. it was like - me asking mishraji - "I guess you are referring to Ramayan, can you explain why" you - "you fool, he is talking about Ramayan".
Jersey #10 Posted December 19, 2011 Posted December 19, 2011 arey tau, I asked what mishra jee is thinking, I got the reference to the limits... So.. you did not add anything new there.. it was like - me asking mishraji - "I guess you are referring to Ramayan, can you explain why" you - "you fool, he is talking about Ramayan". I didn't say "you fool". I just extended your thought into a process for an example. anyway, it's all good
Recommended Posts