Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20130223 03:25:33
Moving CirclesHi! Last edited by SmellyMan (20130223 03:28:56) #2 20130223 03:29:44
Re: Moving CirclesHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #4 20130223 03:50:20
Re: Moving CirclesHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20130223 03:58:06
Re: Moving Circles
This is a friend of him speaking and I'll try make it as clear as possible. Last edited by SmellyMan (20130223 04:00:54) #6 20130223 04:05:58
Re: Moving CirclesThe positions of the tanks are known so they do not need to be calculated. What you require is when the circle overlap contains the center point of the other circle. Last edited by bobbym (20130223 04:06:15) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #7 20130223 04:06:17
Re: Moving Circles
Yes, exactly! Last edited by SmellyMan (20130223 04:06:31) #8 20130223 04:07:00
Re: Moving CirclesHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #10 20130223 04:29:20
Re: Moving CirclesDo you have the equations of the circles that represent where the tank can fire or do you need it? Last edited by bobbym (20130223 04:46:18) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #11 20130223 04:48:53
Re: Moving Circles
No, I do not have any equations of the circles, it is one of our bigger problems in the process. #12 20130223 04:52:07
Re: Moving CirclesYou have the positions of the tanks in (x,y) coordinates, which you will call the centers of the circles? You have the firing radius? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #14 20130223 05:03:29
Re: Moving CirclesThe equation that gives you the circle which represents where a tank can fire is ( x0 , y0 ) is the ordered pair which is the tank position and r is the firing radius. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #15 20130223 05:08:12
Re: Moving Circles
If the x0 and y0 is the current position of the tank in a 2d plane, we basically substract the full length of the axis to get a pythagoras theorem? #16 20130223 05:18:12
Re: Moving CirclesHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #17 20130223 05:18:57
Re: Moving Circles
Yes I've drawn it myself and I've come to understand it, it's not all that complicated. I appreciate the picture! #18 20130223 05:22:02
Re: Moving CirclesThe position of the other tank, the victim, is within range of the first tank when its center is on the circle or inside it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #20 20130223 05:29:03
Re: Moving CirclesOkay, hold on while I try to get the answer. Last edited by bobbym (20130223 05:42:40) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #21 20130223 05:50:35
Re: Moving Circles
This means the formula would look like this: Last edited by SmellyMan (20130223 05:54:44) #22 20130223 05:55:31
Re: Moving CirclesHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #23 20130223 06:05:20
Re: Moving Circles
I'm sorry for any grief I may have caused. I have one more question, but perhaps it'll be resolved when you draw it, so it'll be more clear to me. #24 20130223 06:23:15
Re: Moving CirclesIn the drawing below you are the red tank. You are located at (6,1). You have a firing radius of 5. The equation of the circle for your tank is: There are three enemy tanks they are in blue. Tank1 is at (10,5) to find out if he is in range you just plug into this inequality, 4^2 + 4^2 is not ≤ to 25 so that tank is out of range as the drawing shows. Tank2 is at (6,6), plugging in, 0^2 + 5^2 is ≤ to 25 so that tank is in range. Tank3 is at (9,0), plugging in, 3^3 +(1)^2 is is ≤ 25 so that tank is in range too as the drawing shows. Last edited by bobbym (20130223 06:27:45) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #25 20130223 06:31:15
Re: Moving CirclesYes, thank you, I figured it'd work like this. Basically you're just comparing the distance between the tanks, and if it's equal or less than the radius, it means that the tank 1 will attack the others. 