• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can you answer this math question?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
don't forget edge length consumption. When you fold... you loose some area to the folded edges. Eventually... your edges would consume all the area of the paper, and even when this happens, assuming no area left for the stack itself, just edges, you wouldn't have enough paper. On the other hand, can you slice the paper into atoms, string them up, and get the height?
(Mass of paper / Mass of carbon atom) * width of an atom. Assuming no excited electrons in the outter shells.
 
"If this is a university math class and you guys are struggling with the most basic geometric sequence possible, that's really sad"

Yep, it is a University but it's not just our group. Most of the students in my class are having a hard time with this question. The professor is wacked!!!! Here is another question he gave to us:

3
+
2 (4)
----------
???? You would say 5 right? Wrong!!!!! Since were talking about base 4, the answer would be 11. So 3+2=11!! You see how confusing this can be sometimes. Plus I'm not that good at math.
 


<< "If this is a university math class and you guys are struggling with the most basic geometric sequence possible, that's really sad"

Yep, it is a University but it's not just our group. Most of the students in my class are having a hard time with this question. The professor is wacked!!!! Here is another question he gave to us:

3
+
2 (4)
----------
???? You would say 5 right? Wrong!!!!! Since were talking about base 4, the answer would be 11. So 3+2=11!! You see how confusing this can be sometimes. Plus I'm not that good at math. >>



To make it easier just think of it this way: 3 + 2(4) = ???.

 
It's common sense that you can't fold paper that many times and certainly his teacher realizes this.

A good estimate for the thickness of a peice of paper would be .004"

Alphathree33's series looks about right (if proper thickness is used).

@ .004" thickness, that's 250 sheets = 1 inch.

250 x 12 x 1250ft = 3,750,000 sheets of paper (unfolded) to reach the top of the Sear's Tower

3750000 = 2^n where n = number of folds
 


<< "If this is a university math class and you guys are struggling with the most basic geometric sequence possible, that's really sad"

Yep, it is a University but it's not just our group. Most of the students in my class are having a hard time with this question. The professor is wacked!!!! Here is another question he gave to us:

3
+
2 (4)
----------
???? You would say 5 right? Wrong!!!!! Since were talking about base 4, the answer would be 11. So 3+2=11!! You see how confusing this can be sometimes. Plus I'm not that good at math. >>

If, for a moment I thought that parentheses meant "base" I might agree with you. However it doesn't. It means multiply. The answer is 9

3 + 2(4) = 3 + (2*4) = 3 + 6 = 9
 


<<

<< "If this is a university math class and you guys are struggling with the most basic geometric sequence possible, that's really sad"

Yep, it is a University but it's not just our group. Most of the students in my class are having a hard time with this question. The professor is wacked!!!! Here is another question he gave to us:


3
+
2 (4)
----------
???? You would say 5 right? Wrong!!!!! Since were talking about base 4, the answer would be 11. So 3+2=11!! You see how confusing this can be sometimes. Plus I'm not that good at math. >>

If, for a moment I thought that parentheses meant "base" I might agree with you. However it doesn't. It means multiply. The answer is 9

3 + 2(4) = 3 + (2*4) = 3 + 6 = 9 >>




😕😕😕😕😕

The answer to that is 11

3 + 2(4) = n
3 +8 = n
11 = n
 
"lol alpha he seems like just a kid, go easy"

No I am not a kid!! Just because I suck at math doesn't mean that I'm an idiot!!! :| In fact my GPA is a 3.2 and I have 80 credits. Actually I have over 100 credits, but I changed my major so I wasn't able to transfer over some of my credits. I work very hard at school at take it very seriously!!
 
Ummm.... haha lemme say something and get shot down again.. but
"Normal" numbers are base 10, binary are base 2 etc...

The "ones" digit is x by 10^0, then the "tens" digit is x by 10^1, etc... no?
So 2 in base 4 is (2x(4^0)) = still 2 isn't it?
 
"(Yes, I understand how non base ten number systems work)"

Yea, you are correct. I gave an example of a base 4 question. So for instance you would count Base 4: 0,1,2,3,10,11,12,13,20,21,22,23,30,31,32,33 and so on......

Instead of the standard 10 base systems that most people are used to.

 


<< However it doesn't. It means multiply. The answer is 9

3 + 2(4) = 3 + (2*4) = 3 + 6 = 9 >>





The answer to that is 11

3 + 2(4) = n
3 +8 = n
11 = n[/i] >>

😱

<-- putting the bottle of scotch back on the shelf

😱
 
I agree with Alphathree33. It's a simple geometric sequence. If the thickness was .5, and each fold makes the thickness double (from what it was after the last fold) you can calculate quite easily how many folds will make it a certain thickness. An = A*r^n-1, where An is the term you want to solve for, r is the ratio it is increasing/decreasing by (in this case it's 2) and n is the current term. So therefore, 1250 = .5*2^n-1.

1250/.5 = 2500

2500 = 2^n-1

log2500 / log 2 = 11.28

2^11.28 = 2^n-1

11.28 = n-1 ----> n = 12.28


Edit: I forgot about the conversion from inches to feet, but that doesn't matter because the paper's not .5 inches anyway. 🙂

 
frogdog - actually you agree with me. Before the alcohol kicked in and I made an ass of myself, I put the solution to the original question a little higher in the thread.
 


<< frogdog - actually you agree with me. Before the alcohol kicked in and I made an ass of myself, I put the solution to the original question a little higher in the thread. >>

Well I agree with somebody. 🙂
 


<< 3 + 2(4) = 3 + (2*4) = 3 + 6 = 9 >>



Say what?! 2 * 4 = 8
rolleye.gif
 
Ya'll are obsessed with formulas.

If n is the number of folds then the first term is 1, not 1/2. Because at 0 folds the thickness is 1/2. At one fold it is 1. None of the functions for Tn thus far satisfy the situation at hand except mine 🙂 a = 1, not 1/2.
 


<<

<< 3 + 2(4) = 3 + (2*4) = 3 + 6 = 9 >>



Say what?! 2 * 4 = 8
rolleye.gif
>>

Gee, you're really quick on the draw aren't you...
 


<< Ya'll are obsessed with formulas.

If n is the number of folds then the first term is 1, not 1/2. Because at 0 folds the thickness is 1/2. At one fold it is 1. None of the functions for Tn thus far satisfy the situation at hand except mine 🙂 a = 1, not 1/2. >>

Touche, I didn't think of that.
 
So, who can tell me the ansewr to this question:

You need a score of 50% on a test to pass it.
Sally takes a test with 18 questions and she gets 10 of them right. Did she pass?
rolleye.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top