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

You are not logged in.

## #1201 2014-01-07 04:45:09

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi bobbym,

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #1202 2014-01-07 04:46:01

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

I have provided the picture in post #1201. I still get the same answer.

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.

## #1203 2014-01-07 04:52:43

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #1204 2014-01-07 04:55:14

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

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.

## #1205 2014-01-07 04:58:29

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

I too did something like that.

I had seen a similar problem in brilliant, but in its current format it would be impossible to find!

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #1206 2014-01-07 05:01:10

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

I do not like the new format at Brilliant. I liked the old one better.

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.

## #1207 2014-01-07 05:08:10

gAr
Star Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Me neither. I rarely go there now, it's not possible to keep track of the problems and discussions there, just looks like a flash flood of questions!

Logging off, see you later..

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  - Buddha?

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay."

## #1208 2014-01-07 05:10:11

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi gAr;

It is a shame! Many people complained but no one is listening.

Have a good night. See you tomorrow.

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.

## #1209 2014-02-25 04:54:14

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

New question:

A circle is inscribed in a square with sides of 10 and a quadrant circle with radius 10 overlaps as shown in the drawing. What is the area of the red region?

A says) Exactly 1. Saw your answer B, as usual it was wrong.

B says) That is somewhat close there A, you are getting better.

C says) I got the right answer and it agrees with A.

A says) Bravo C!

D says) I got B's answer.

E says) I got around .7

What did you get?

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.

## #1210 2014-02-25 20:57:30

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi Bobby,

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1211 2014-02-25 21:54:17

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi phrontister;

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.

## #1212 2014-02-26 00:45:08

anonimnystefy
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi bobbym

I am getting

Last edited by anonimnystefy (2014-02-26 00:47:42)

The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't.
“It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman
“Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

## #1213 2014-02-26 00:58:12

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi;

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.

## #1214 2014-02-26 02:02:23

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi,

This is how I went about it in Geogebra - which is pretty close to stefy's.

That other answer I got in my  previous post - which was also pretty close to stefy's - used the fractions given in Geogebra's 'Exact evaluation' from their CAS, but I take it that if stefy's is the right answer then Geogebra may not be truly 'exact'...although we agree for many decimal places.

Last edited by phrontister (2014-02-26 02:12:51)

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1215 2014-02-26 02:12:07

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi phrontister;

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.

## #1216 2014-02-26 17:03:20

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi Bobby,

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1217 2014-02-26 19:31:53

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi;

Your progress with it has been excellent. True, there are zillions of files and the demonstrations are incredible but to get through them requires a studious mind. Wunderbar!

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.

## #1218 2014-02-27 03:25:24

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi Bobby,

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1219 2014-02-27 03:31:26

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi;

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.

## #1220 2014-02-27 04:03:02

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi Bobby,

This is what I did (had to research the lune idea first as I'd never heard of it before, but I came across the term in searching for 'crescent', and then used Wolfram's lune formula):

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1221 2014-02-27 04:05:30

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

You solved it using the lune! I was unable to and had to use the left region.

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.

## #1222 2014-02-27 04:16:18

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

It's a horrible-looking formula and I'll never try to understand it! But it worked beautifully and shrank down a lot when simplified.

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1223 2014-02-27 04:17:26

bobbym

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Yes, I was there. Can you show me your M workings that I can follow. That page drove me crazy.

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.

## #1224 2014-02-27 13:06:39

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

Hi Bobby,

Here is a much better version of my M explanation (I deleted the previous one), plus an amended drawing to suit it:

Edit: There's now an amended version of this amended drawing in my next post...

Last edited by phrontister (2014-02-27 20:27:36)

"The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do." - Ted Nelson

## #1225 2014-02-27 18:17:18

phrontister
Real Member

Offline

### Re: Bafflers?

I made a mistake with the formula for IC on my last drawing...so here's the update.