Oh, ok. Then it would be something like (2x3.14x37) x (2x2x3.14). Basicly you use the diameter as the height of a cylinder and the crosscut as it's base and calculate the volume as if it were a cylinder.
Actually no, that isn't correct lol. You would need to take into account the differential of the inner and outer diameters but you can still do it kinda like i posted earlier, with slight modifications.
Let's use a and b as the outer and inner diameters. (a+b/2)x(2x2x3,14).
EDIT: If i'm still wrong, i'll give it some more thought. Or just cheat and look it up from the internet lol. I hate geometry, never even tried to calculate such things.,
Just a slight modification there my friend, and it is correct. It is quite easy if you think what the object would form were it put in a straight line.
So, did i win a prize for almost getting it right by winging it? I've never actually calculated the volume of such an object. A ruler and a piece of paper would have been a great help as i would have straightened it out on paper and went from there heh.
But of course! Everyone is a winner. I'm not really one to judge or rate people, I imposed the question merely out of curiosity. Besides, I owe you and everyone else who bothered to reply for contributing to the topic.
Thank you!
Ps. I'd like to scribble up another problem to solve, but I'm afraid I could accidentally turn this forum into a mathematical puzzle corner! I am simply ecstatic when it comes to mathematics and physics.
Pss. How far did you study mathematics? You've at least had some experience in geometrics, I take it?
Nothing past the 9th grade. After that i went to study to become an eletric engineer but i got very bored of that field very fast. That line of studies didn't include geometrics though. More physics and math related to electricity, like resistance values etc but it's been a long while since i did any math or pshysics/chem problems and i have very little interest in either field. I enjoy history, sociology, philosophy and psychology more. Like i've said, humans are interesting, numbers are not. :)
EDIT: This forum and threads that are contained within are pretty free for all topics. It digusts me when someone comes declaring that a thread is going off-topic. I mean.. have those people ever had a conversation with another human being? Objectively? It's natural for the topic to go to places where it originally wasn't intended to go.
Hmm, I simply must ask this out of curiosity, how would you begin solving this:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7365/wineglass4.jpg
I'm not expecting an answer, since I do not think it can be solved without education in mathematics, but I'm curious how you would begin solving the problem.
Thank you and sorry for going a bit off-topic.
First i would, somehow, solve the area of the thingy in 2d. Then the area of the top and go from there. I have never even touched integrals so i'm lost. I would need to study the basics of such calculus first to get anywhere. "To run, one must learn how to walk" or something. :P
I do not want to brag or anything, but I solved how to use integrals without anyone's help. Although I already had been introduced to derivatives by then. I made a test for function f(x)=2x, which has the derivative function of f'(x)=2, and it was fairly easy to realize that the 2x showed the other function's area from 0->x. After that it's only required to turn the process the other way around and realize that it works in every case. I thought of it as hopping through different dimensions, 1d, 2d, 3d, 4d, etc.
You have to use integrals in almost every college level math problem at some point.
Not a bad guess, anyway.
Thanks for replying Hexi, I appreciate it.
Ps. I'm going on a vacation for one and a half week, so I'll be back replying then.
Thank you for the terrific reply! It was very supplementary, and perhaps the whole debate has taken a wrong turn because of the wide list of definitions for "intelligent". I truly appreciate that you found the time to reply to the question with such a well-thought and well-written post.
Thank you again!
I guess what i've been trying to point out is that you can expand your knowledge and understanding to gain a more enlightened perspective and understanding of the world around you. If you take that as intelligence then yes, you can become more intelligent BUT every person has s limit to their ability to comprehend concepts. Not machinery, situational awereness or inanimate systems but concepts, ideas and, like i mentioned earlier, the whys, ifs and what thens of concepts and ideas. As an example, some people just cannot comprehend how studying history will enable you to predict the future. Some cannot comprehend why events across the world could ever affect them. Most people just don't have the brain capacity to automatically associate cause and effect of 2 seeminly unrelated concepts. You cannot train your mind to make bridges over gaps that you didn't know existed.
EDIT: A perfect example is the madness of global climate change. The whole idea is riduclous to those that know history and understand the chaotic nature of our planet. Instead they simply do not care, and happily bend over to the talking head on TV that tells them how they are doomed unless they give them moeny to "save the planet". Funny, it used to be "give us money to save your community from hell!!". Guess that stuff don't fly so well no more. Every person that believes that we are having a catastrophic influence over our planet is an unintelligent ignorant dimwit.
I guess what i've been trying to point out is that you can expand your knowledge and understanding to gain a more enlightened perspective and understanding of the world around you. If you take that as intelligence then yes, you can become more intelligent BUT every person has s limit to their ability to comprehend concepts. Not machinery, situational awereness or inanimate systems but concepts, ideas and, like i mentioned earlier, the whys, ifs and what thens of concepts and ideas. As an example, some people just cannot comprehend how studying history will enable you to predict the future. Some cannot comprehend why events across the world could ever affect them. Most people just don't have the brain capacity to automatically associate cause and effect of 2 seeminly unrelated concepts. You cannot train your mind to make bridges over gaps that you didn't know existed.
EDIT: A perfect example is the madness of global climate change. The whole idea is riduclous to those that know history and understand the chaotic nature of our planet. Instead they simply do not care, and happily bend over to the talking head on TV that tells them how they are doomed unless they give them moeny to "save the planet". Funny, it used to be "give us money to save your community from hell!!". Guess that stuff don't fly so well no more. Every person that believes that we are having a catastrophic influence over our planet is an unintelligent ignorant dimwit.
----- I think most people without mental defects are able of comprehending concepts. It;s not that people can't comprehend world history or that climate change has happened before (though I think it is fair to saythat if we can measure the effects ofcarbon monoxide from cars and cfc's etc and draw the conclusion they do damage the ozone etc, then it IS fair to conclude that it may be that climate change is happening and we are helping it along, acerbating it...)
Anyway it's not that the genral public aren't able to comprehend, they are just ignorant, they haven't sat down with all the possible data, findings, research and info and had the time to come up witha conclusion or a better understandign of the concepts as they are too busy with work, familly and other stuff.
But that's just it. They don't think critically and objectively about the information presented to them. Also, it's not that it damages our atmosphere, but rather that it binds more heat into it and that is the basis of the whole thing, which is a stupid argument to make. It's been hotter and colder on the planet than in our idustrial period and it seems like it's cooling again. There is no factual basis for the argument, no evidence to prove correlation. It's an assumption based on a hypothesis based on a theory. That's not science, that's having an agenda.
What i was trying to point out in my earlier post was that most people lack the important phase of new information being processed, the critical evaluation. Being too busy is ******** excuse for being ignorant. We have minds, start using them instead of being "too busy".