Intellectual betterment.

[johnboy]

Thanks for the reply and the explanation!

However, I still can't quite grasp why these comments should be construed as insulting or as putting someone down - for me it is a quite rational and factbased reply.

If a person feels "put down" or insulted because he happens to read a couple of words he cannot fully grasp, then I would suggest that the fault is with the person feeling such and not with the knowledgable person.

And I still can't understand why there is anything wrong in factually stating that you are quite good at something.

Indeed, one should cherish the moments where one happen to meet a more knowledgeable person than oneself - this gives a moment of opportunity for continually learning and expanding ones knowledgebase and skills.

//Kim Horsevad

PS: I actually learnt a new word from you post. I am Danish and my accuaintance with the english language is mostly from reading research litterature - as such the term "rubbernecking" was new for me. Google is a powerful friend indeed!

Kia Ora Kim,

The 'problem' is were not dealing with a face to face conversation at a BBQ or over a few beers where body language, tone of voice and a whole host of other factors come into play. It's hard written words on a computer screen. While the words and percieved tone might be acceptable to some to others the tone is percieved differently.

Then there is a cutural factor as you say you're Danish and English is not your first Language so with the deepest respect it may be you're missing the tone that is obvious if you're British. Assuming I could read and speak Danish if I went on a Danish forum I would probably miss a lot of the tone and implied intent within written conversations as Culturally I'm not Danish. I'd miss something and make a Ar#e of myself or get someones back up etc....

While there is nothing wrong at all with being good at something, Maths, Bushcraft, Mensa Tests, Airfix Models etc ... Culturally the British are traditionally modest often to the point of self depreciation. It's generally acceptable to be lauded by your peers as good at something... Ie Johnboy is really good at Airfix models you should talk to him. etc

If I however state in a conversation.. "Look I'm in the top 1% of all Airfix model builders in the world so my statements have more relavence in this conversation on the 15 part Spitfire kit realeased in 1952". I might be considered a bit brash and immodest. More so if that statement is being used to belittle someone else.

As someone said on this forum a while ago when an Immodest statement was made 'Take a modesty pill immediately!!" That made me laugh. But it's a good summation of how folks can feel.

Cheers

John

 

[JonathanD]

Right, you have 2 eggs. They are exactly the same. You need to test the highest floor the eggs can be dropped and remain intact when falling from a 99 storey building. Explain the least number of tests you need to do in order to know exactly.

So what was the answer? Or is this a test designed to evaluate people based upon the answer they give and there isn't an answer?

 

[Scottishwanderer]

@ Johnboy

Spoken language is an amazing thing.

I was thinking the other day about the typical conversation that generally occurs, especially in Scotland with people of similar backgrounds as i. Usually go's something like this.

"Oright chief, hoos it goin? "Nae bad chief, yersell?" "No tae bad neebor" "Aye, wit ye bin uptae?""F$%% aw, you?" "F#$% aw" "Hoo's yer maw?" "Deed" "Sare ane" "Av got ti git gan chief" "Nae boer chief, cho" "Cho"

Thats fairly typical but contains nearly no info whatsoever.

Just thought this was related lol

 

[mountainm]

The type of egg is unknown, the type of floor is unknown, the strength of gravity is unknown - suffice to say things will drop. You have 99 floors (100 if you count the ground). You have 2 eggs. You know the eggs will break at some point. You are allowed to break both eggs in the process. What is the minimum number of iterations needs to know exactly when the eggs will break.

e.g you could start at ground floor, drop an egg, no break - move on to the next floor, drop an egg, no break etc.


Here is the answer:

Answer: The easiest way to do this would be to start from the first floor and drop the egg. If it doesn’t break, move on to the next floor. If it does break, then we know the maximum floor the egg will survive is 0. If we continue this process, we will easily find out the maximum floors the egg will survive with just one egg. So the maximum number of tries is 100 that is when the egg survives even at the 100th floor.

Can we do better? Of course we can. Let’s start at the second floor. If the egg breaks, then we can use the second egg to go back to the first floor and try again. If it does not break, then we can go ahead and try on the 4th floor (in multiples of 2). If it ever breaks, say at floor x, then we know it survived floor x-2. That leaves us with just floor x-1 to try with the second egg. So what is the maximum number of tries possible? It occurs when the egg survives 98 or 99 floors. It will take 50 tries to reach floor 100 and one more egg to try on the 99th floor so the total is 51 tries. Wow, that is almost half of what we had last time.

Can we do even better? Yes we can. What if we try at intervals of 3? Applying the same logic as the previous case, we need a max of 35 tries to find out the information (33 tries to reach 99th floor and 2 more on 97th and 98th floor).

Interval – Maximum tries
1 – 100
2 – 51
3 – 35
4 – 29
5 – 25
6 – 21
7 – 20
8 – 19
9 – 19
10 – 19
11 – 19
12 – 19
13 – 19
14 – 20
15 – 20
16 – 21

So picking any one of the intervals with 19 maximum tries would be fine.

However we can go one better

Instead of taking equal intervals, we can increase the number of floors by one less than the previous increment. For example, let’s first try at floor 14. If it breaks, then we need 13 more tries to find the solution. If it doesn’t break, then we should try floor 27 (14 + 13). If it breaks, we need 12 more tries to find the solution. So the initial 2 tries plus the additional 12 tries would still be 14 tries in total. If it doesn’t break, we can try 39 (27 + 12) and so on. Using 14 as the initial floor, we can reach up to floor 105 (14 + 13 + 12 + … + 1) before we need more than 14 tries. Since we only need to cover 100 floors, 14 tries is sufficient to find the solution.

Therefore, 14 is the least number of tries to find out the solution.

 

[johnboy]

@ Johnboy

Spoken language is an amazing thing.

I was thinking the other day about the typical conversation that generally occurs, especially in Scotland with people of similar backgrounds as i. Usually go's something like this.

"Oright chief, hoos it goin? "Nae bad chief, yersell?" "No tae bad neebor" "Aye, wit ye bin uptae?""F$%% aw, you?" "F#$% aw" "Hoo's yer maw?" "Deed" "Sare ane" "Av got ti git gan chief" "Nae boer chief, cho" "Cho"

Thats fairly typical but contains nearly no info whatsoever.

Just thought this was related lol

Kia Ora Scottishwanderer...

Yep that's a good bit of patois... Often you see posts on here with a similar Scottish inflection...

I'm increasingly interested in how we treat and interact with each other on this forum. For the most part it's with respect and care.

Sometimes things get a bit toey but there you go... The thing about a forum is of course you have a large degree of anonymity and you can create an online persona if you wish to... Obviously face to face tha'ts more difficult.

Interesting things forums...

 

[Retired Member southey]

Is the egg dropped by hand or a machine? there could be differing forces imparted to the egg which would massively alter the results,even if the egg survived a drop from shin height on the ground floor, are we attaching flights to the egg to ensure it hits the same spot on the shell each time, we will have to send the egg for non destructive testing after every drop as there could be fracture caused that would weaken the shell giving a non consistent result, are the floors equal in height, what type of egg is it(still not defined)

 

[mountainm]

I wish I hadn't bothered.....

 

[Retired Member southey]

Its a question that has to many assumptions fr me, but I aint no maths dong chap!

 

[mountainm]

Its a question that has to many assumptions fr me, but I aint no maths dong chap!

Making assumptions is part of solving the problem.

ie.

I shall assume.
All floors are of equal height.
An egg if dropped and survives is not weakened in any way.
My release mechanism will not have any consequence on the result.
My building exists in a vacuum

etc.

You have to eliminate the variables to construct a constant model.

 

[Retired Member southey]

But then every one would have different answers?

 

[mountainm]

But then every one would have different answers?

No, everyone has the same answers because all those variables are excluded. Remember we are not looking to find out when the egg breaks. We are looking to find out the minimum number of test required to find out when the egg breaks.

 

[Scottishwanderer]

Mountainm

Surely if you mentioned the fact that all variables are taken out it would have helped.

Isn't the answer two?

Drop it from 99 it doesn't break, drop it from 100 it breaks, we now know the answer.

 

[billybob0987]

the question has nothing to do with the fact an egg is extremely fragile, it is more to do with the testing method to prove, as in if you had no idea what an egg was, but wanted to test what hieghts it would break from, how many times might you have to do it, therefore the answer is 50 tests, if you drop the egg from every other floor and it does not break then in 49 tests you will get to floor 98 and then obviously you will have to drop it from floor 99, making it 50 seperate tests, however if it breaks on any floor, lets say 24, then you know it cant survive a fall from that hieght but can from floor 22, so you would drop the second egg from floor 23, and if breaks or doesnt break you will know exactly which floor is the maximum it can be dropped from,

the test is flawed though, as it assumes that each drop will not weaken the egg unless it breaks it, which it would, plus it assumes that all eggs are completely identical which they are not, plus i think you might have meant to say most number of tests not least, as you would need anything from 1 to 50 tests to know exactly how many, but you wouldnt neccessarily know from one, even though you would cause its an egg, but thats common sense, not scientific method

so i was pretty close then

 

[mountainm]

Mountainm

Surely if you mentioned the fact that all variables are taken out it would have helped.

Isn't the answer two?

Drop it from 99 it doesn't break, drop it from 100 it breaks, we now know the answer.

I posted the answer below. Most Maths and Physics problems are run in perfect universes (in a vacuum etc.)

 

[mountainm]

@ billybob0987 Yup, the closest.

 

[Maggot]

Thanks for the reply and the explanation!

However, I still can't quite grasp why these comments should be construed as insulting or as putting someone down - for me it is a quite rational and factbased reply.

If a person feels "put down" or insulted because he happens to read a couple of words he cannot fully grasp, then I would suggest that the fault is with the person feeling such and not with the knowledgable person.

And I still can't understand why there is anything wrong in factually stating that you are quite good at something.

Indeed, one should cherish the moments where one happen to meet a more knowledgeable person than oneself - this gives a moment of opportunity for continually learning and expanding ones knowledgebase and skills.

//Kim Horsevad

PS: I actually learnt a new word from you post. I am Danish and my accuaintance with the english language is mostly from reading research litterature - as such the term "rubbernecking" was new for me. Google is a powerful friend indeed!

Kim, I worry you have missed a key point. If I say I am good at something, such as Johnboys Airfixing, and tell you what to do with your model, you would be a fool not to check out my Airfixing qualifications before removing the wings from a Harrier with scissors just because I said it was a good idea and I am knowledgeable. There is also the issue of knowing how something works/happens theoretically, and then having the ability to carry out that task. I know the process and reasons for the removal of an appendix, trust me, you wouldn't want me removing yours!

If you would like to further grasp how we English work socially, then I invite you to read a book called "Watching the English" by Kate Fox. She explains how we work to set social rules, at work, at home, in families and all sorts of other situations. It really is a very interesting book, including a rule around avoiding difficult subjects by bringing in completely irrelevant topics and keeping on that topic to avoid facing the harsh initial truth, as has happened on here with the 'egg' discussion.

Kim, if you are interested in reading this book, so long as you promise to send it back, you are more than welcome to borrow it, I'd be happy to send it to you. It should be on the required reading list for any visitors to the UK. Most Brits could do with reading it as well to be fair!

 

[mountainm]

including a rule around avoiding difficult subjects by bringing in completely irrelevant topics and keeping on that topic to avoid facing the harsh initial truth, as has happened on here with the 'egg' discussion.

I wasn't avoiding any hard initial truth, I was just bored stiff of all the playground antics and "last wording" from all parties involved and sought to inject a little "Intellectual betterment" so the thread somewhat resembled it's initial title.

 

[Retired Member southey]

Kim, I worry you have missed a key point. If I say I am good at something, such as Johnboys Airfixing, and tell you what to do with your model, you would be a fool not to check out my Airfixing qualifications before removing the wings from a Harrier with scissors just because I said it was a good idea and I am knowledgeable. There is also the issue of knowing how something works/happens theoretically, and then having the ability to carry out that task. I know the process and reasons for the removal of an appendix, trust me, you wouldn't want me removing yours!

If you would like to further grasp how we English work socially, then I invite you to read a book called "Watching the English" by Kate Fox. She explains how we work to set social rules, at work, at home, in families and all sorts of other situations. It really is a very interesting book, including a rule around avoiding difficult subjects by bringing in completely irrelevant topics and keeping on that topic to avoid facing the harsh initial truth, as has happened on here with the 'egg' discussion.

Kim, if you are interested in reading this book, so long as you promise to send it back, you are more than welcome to borrow it, I'd be happy to send it to you. It should be on the required reading list for any visitors to the UK. Most Brits could do with reading it as well to be fair!

Could you explain what you mean by the chap?( smiley used to show not annoyed just interested as part of a voice pitch, nvc thing)

 

[johnboy]

If you would like to further grasp how we English work socially, then I invite you to read a book called "Watching the English" by Kate Fox.

Just ordered a copy... Sounds like a good read... I'll need to brush up I'm heading over to the 'motherland' for a visit next year...

 

[Maggot]

Could you explain what you mean by the chap?( smiley used to show not annoyed just interested as part of a voice pitch, nvc thing)

OK, if someone gives an American a compliment, "Your arms look musclely in that shirt Southey, and those abs...wow" The American Southey will probably say "Gee thanks Maggot, I've been working out because since I got my $5000 pay rise, taking me to $1000000 a year, I can afford a better gym". Now, if you are the Aldershot Southey and I say "Your arms look musclely in that shirt Southey, and those abs...wow" you will probably respond "Don't take the piss you tw@, I know I shrunk my shirt so it's tight, and these jeans are just out of the wash, they'll loosen up. Anyway, you've lost loads of weight since you started on that Bushcraft forum, and you are such a popular guy on there, maybe you should come to the Moot. Or are you just turning gay? Now stop taking the piss and get the beers in"

This would be in the Grooming Talk rules, there are loads of rules, Pub, Weather, Grooming, Road, Work, Play, Dress, Food, Sex, Travel etc. It's a very interesting read. If Kim doesn't want to have a look, you are more than welcome.