Way way OT but someone might know

Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:21:00 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:50:24 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:56:43 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 08:52:19 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 11:07:26 -0400, Tim Slattery
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:


Here are two mo

If you fly due south from the Detroit airport, what's the first
foreign country you fly over?

Canada, of course


Right, of course. That was the easy one.

I guess it's safe to assume that the "Detroit [Michigan] airport" hasn't
always been located where it is now, because currently it's not north of any
part of Canada that I can see. It's north of Cuba, though.



The airport in Detroit is north of Canada. The airport outside of the
Detroit city limits (Romulus, MI). is west of Canada.

Both are in the same county, only one in Detroit.

Sorry, Homey, that don't fly. The question referred to "the Detroit
airport", and that's the "Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport",
located southwest of the city center, between I-275, I-94, and I-75. Flying
due south of there doesn't take you into/across Canada.

Every city of significant size has multiple airports, but only one is
typically "the" airport. The others are usually executive airports,
typically restricted to private planes, charters, etc.


No directions needed, know exactly where each are.

Only one airport *in* Detroit, and it is north of Canada.

Good luck then. If you take a commercial flight to Detroit, you're going to
be quite lost if you think you're going to anything other than "the Detroit
airport". You might want to plan to take a taxi when you get there. ;-)


No, for a commercial flight one would arrive at one of two terminals.
Neither in Detroit but in Romulus, MI.

There is only one airport in Detroit (north of Canada)

The question Ken asked is time sensitive too.

In the past a commercial flight could/would have landed at Willow Run
(further west of Detroit) in Van Buren Township or the airport *in*
Detroit but not in Romulus.

The question did not specify any specific airport, it only specified if
one flies south from the 'Detroit' airport. There is only one Detroit
airport.

You're absolutely right, and it's [currently] in the suburb of Romulus. I
can't speak to where it might have been at some other point in time.

Ken's question might have been better phrased if he had omitted the word
airport and simply said, when flying due south from Detroit. Obviously, the
answer he was looking for was Canada, but just as obviously the Detroit
airport doesn't lie north of Canada. Still, it was a good exercise.


Oh so now it's Ken's fault!
Old question, same trickiness, same answer as always - Canada.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 06/11/2015 02:03 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:48:45 -0400, Tim Slattery
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:


Which US state is the easternmost?

Alaska, because it extends across the 180th meridian


Yes, that's the standard answer, but it's one that I disagree with. As
far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as easternmost (or
westernmost). There is a northernmost and a southernmost, because the
north and south poles mark the northernmost and southernmost points on
the earth. But there is no east pole or west pole and you can keep
going east or west forever.

Treating the 180th meridian as if it were a pole is completely
arbitrary and makes no sense to me.


That's what I thought at first. As happens a lot, reality refuses to be
that simple.

There are two different ways of using "east" and "west". One is
self-relative. For example, wherever you are, look to the east. For
this, "easternmost" and "westernmost" are meaningless.

The other is relative to the Prime Meridian, whichever way is closest.
For example, Western Hemisphere" (the definition of that has nothing to
do with where you are). Here, "easternmost" and "westernmost" DO mean
something.



--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 02:07 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

Some people are better at imagination that others, but I have no problem
imagining setting a ring down on a ball. The ball is Earth and the ring
has a CIRCUMFERENCE of 1 mile. It is placed on the Earth so that the
south pole is in its center. I now mark a spot 1 mile north of this ring
"start here".


Well put! Thanks.


I'm often poor at explaining things. I'm glad I got that one right.

And don't forget that it also works if the ring is half a mile in
diameter, 1.3 of a mile in diameter, 1.4 of a mile in diameter, and so
on. You simply have to walk around the ring 2, 3, 4, or so on times.
There are an infinite number of rings and an infinite number of point
one mile north of any point on any of the rings.


And you added something I hadn't thought of. That it works for different
size rings too.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 02:21 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:55 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


There's also "if 1 and a half chickens lay 1 and a half eggs in 1 and a
half days, how many eggs will 9 chickens lay in 9 days?"


54

If 1 and a half chickens lay 1 and a half eggs in 1 and a half days,
then 1 chicken can lay 1 egg in 1 and a half days.

Multiply the day and a half by six to make 9 days, and that same
chicken can now lay 6 eggs.

If one chicken can lay six eggs (in any amount of time), then 6
chickens can lay 54 eggs.


That's right. I've seen some people who refuse to do anything arguing
about half-chickens being unable to lay eggs. The problem is simple when
you just use math.


--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 02:25 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:55 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


There's another strange one I heard once. This takes 6 identical sticks
(perhaps you could imagine them). I'm thinking of toothpicks...

Take 3 of the sticks and arrange them as a triangle.

Take 2 of the sticks and add them to the previous arrangement to make 2
triangles (one side is shared).

Take the last stick and add it to the above to make 4 triangles. You are
not allowed to cut, bend, or stretch any stick.

The solution is easy but some people find it impossible.


The solution is to make the two triangles into a three dimensional
figure, not a two dimensional one. Reshape the two triangles so that
the two farthest apart points are above the plane, one toothpick
apart, then connect them with the sixth toothpick.


That is how you do it. Some people have very limited imagination and
wouldn't consider using another dimension. This (and the chicken & eggs
one) are meant to be very simple things that some people find impossible.



--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 02:42 PM, pjp wrote:

[snip]

Take the last stick and add it to the above to make 4 triangles. You are
not allowed to cut, bend, or stretch any stick.

The solution is easy but some people find it impossible.

Pyramid shape

Triangular pyramid, called a Tetrahedron (a regular polyhedron having 4
sides, all triangles).

There are 5 regular (all sides the same) polyhedra. The most well known
one is the cube (6 squares sides). I have a Dodecahedron (12 pentagonal
sides) I built when I was about 13.

There's also "if 1 and a half chickens lay 1 and a half eggs in 1 and a
half days, how many eggs will 9 chickens lay in 9 days?"




--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 03:04 PM, Wolf K wrote:

[snip]

Again, ambiguity traps you. Fact is, most people parse "2 times more" as
"twice as much". Insisting that your parsing is the correct one
misunderstands how language means.

and considering "2 times more" to mean the same as "2 times as much"
fails to consider that "more" means something.

And, of course, "most people" has nothing to do with being right.

Have a good day,



--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:13:26 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/11/2015 02:21 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:55 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


There's also "if 1 and a half chickens lay 1 and a half eggs in 1 and a
half days, how many eggs will 9 chickens lay in 9 days?"


54

If 1 and a half chickens lay 1 and a half eggs in 1 and a half days,
then 1 chicken can lay 1 egg in 1 and a half days.

Multiply the day and a half by six to make 9 days, and that same
chicken can now lay 6 eggs.

If one chicken can lay six eggs (in any amount of time), then 6


Typo, of course, That should be "then 9."

chickens can lay 54 eggs.


That's right. I've seen some people who refuse to do anything arguing
about half-chickens being unable to lay eggs. The problem is simple when
you just use math.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:15:50 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/11/2015 02:25 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:55 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


There's another strange one I heard once. This takes 6 identical sticks
(perhaps you could imagine them). I'm thinking of toothpicks...

Take 3 of the sticks and arrange them as a triangle.

Take 2 of the sticks and add them to the previous arrangement to make 2
triangles (one side is shared).

Take the last stick and add it to the above to make 4 triangles. You are
not allowed to cut, bend, or stretch any stick.

The solution is easy but some people find it impossible.


The solution is to make the two triangles into a three dimensional
figure, not a two dimensional one. Reshape the two triangles so that
the two farthest apart points are above the plane, one toothpick
apart, then connect them with the sixth toothpick.


That is how you do it. Some people have very limited imagination and
wouldn't consider using another dimension. This (and the chicken & eggs
one) are meant to be very simple things that some people find impossible.


Yes, and I neglected to mention that when you add the sixth toothpick,
you have what's called a tetrahedron.

[snip]

Yesterday, my student that I tutor in math had a misunderstanding
on 10 / 0.5. The answer is not 5 as he thought. Many other people
would make the same mistake, but that does not make it correct.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko


How would someone get 5 for that?

You could ignore zeros and decimal points to get 1/5. Then (for no
apparent reason) take the reciprocal. Why do that?

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:20:33 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/11/2015 02:42 PM, pjp wrote:

[snip]

Take the last stick and add it to the above to make 4 triangles. You are
not allowed to cut, bend, or stretch any stick.

The solution is easy but some people find it impossible.

Pyramid shape

Triangular pyramid, called a Tetrahedron (a regular polyhedron having 4
sides, all triangles).


Oops. Sorry I just said the same thing, not having seen this message
first.



There are 5 regular (all sides the same) polyhedra. The most well known
one is the cube (6 squares sides). I have a Dodecahedron (12 pentagonal
sides) I built when I was about 13.


And the other two are the octahedron (eight sides) and the icosahedron
(20 sides).


In an art class in college I once built a highly decorated
triakisicosahedron, a modified icosahedron, that is semi-regular.

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:08:15 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 06/11/2015 02:03 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:48:45 -0400, Tim Slattery
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:


Which US state is the easternmost?

Alaska, because it extends across the 180th meridian


Yes, that's the standard answer, but it's one that I disagree with. As
far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as easternmost (or
westernmost). There is a northernmost and a southernmost, because the
north and south poles mark the northernmost and southernmost points on
the earth. But there is no east pole or west pole and you can keep
going east or west forever.

Treating the 180th meridian as if it were a pole is completely
arbitrary and makes no sense to me.


That's what I thought at first. As happens a lot, reality refuses to be
that simple.

There are two different ways of using "east" and "west". One is
self-relative. For example, wherever you are, look to the east. For
this, "easternmost" and "westernmost" are meaningless.

The other is relative to the Prime Meridian, whichever way is closest.
For example, Western Hemisphere" (the definition of that has nothing to
do with where you are). Here, "easternmost" and "westernmost" DO mean
something.


I understand your point of view, but as I said, I disagree with it.

On 06/11/2015 04:34 PM, Robert Oppenhighmer wrote:
In article gk0hna1pq376k3v0cthl9hut33qspkt9en@
4ax.com, says...

Sure there is. North of the south pole and southof the north
pole, east does exist.

At what point north of the South Pole does east
commence its existence?


The shortest possible distance. The exception (where "east" doesn't
exist) is infinitely small.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 05:27 PM, pjp wrote:

[snip]

There's a very simple math equation that "proves" 2 = 1. Can't remember
exact formula you started out with (was something like x2 + y2 = (x + y)
2 - the "2" represents squared). Was only about four lines for proof but
one had to notice there was a divide by zero in it that invalidated what
followed. Saw that in grade 10 and basically freaked till noticed the
problem, most would never see it.

Anyone remember it more exactly?


I don't remember that. I do remember a discovery I made in 2nd grade. In
college I learned it's the way digital computers do subtraction.

They were teaching about subtraction (something like 13-7). The teacher
said you couldn't just turn it around and do 17-3, and proceeded to
explain a complex process called "borrowing". I didn't give up and tried
it with 17-3. You don't get the right answer. You get the 9's complement
of the right answer (subtract it from 9).

I still had to learn it the hard way, you when the teacher used the 3
dirty words "show your work".

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]

On 06/11/2015 06:07 PM, Char Jackson wrote:

[snip]

I support your theory that most people would parse that as 'twice as much'
since that's how I parsed it, (I've never actually heard someone say 'two
times more', is that a real thing?), and I represent 'most people'. ;-)


I hear that kind of thing a lot.

"two times more", "three times bigger", "four times longer", "10 times
heavier" are all likely to be 1-off errors.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The Devil...clutched hold of the miserable young man...and flew off
with him through the ceiling, since which time nothing has been heard of
[him]." [Martin Luther]