[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 1201x674, homework.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9192079 No.9192079 [Reply] [Original]

Please show your workings.

>> No.9192095

/sci/ is not for homework
saged

>> No.9192096

>>9192079
14

>> No.9192100

>>9192095
/sci/ isn't for rubes either but you're here.

>> No.9192104

it really depends on if you're allowed to melt the balls

>> No.9192105

One, either it fits or it doesn't.

>> No.9192127

>>9192079
Harder than quantum mechanics.

>> No.9192139

>>9192079
I know how to do it, but it is a very, very inefficient way of doing it. There HAS to be a better and simpler way. My idea is to place them layer by layer by manually calculating jow many can fit on one layer of balls. Stack them upwards, as if they were in a right cylinder. Then find the difference of space you have remaining for each new layer after the first one.

When u have the difference for each layer, brute work your way through it and find the most optimal way of arranging them.

Why I say this is very inefficient is because you have to guess and rely on brute forcing your answer. Let's not forget thr fact that there might be even a better way to arrange them than the way you achieve using this method due to it's complexity and rigorness.

I'm positive there is a simpler and better way of doing this

>> No.9192143

>>9192079
Nigger how can that angle be 90 degrees if the bases are of different length?

>> No.9192145

>>9192143
Kek

>> No.9192146

90 degrees at top?

>> No.9192147

>>9192143
Unless it's only that angle and the other one is something less?

>> No.9192149

>>9192147
That would be one weird fucking bucket. More like a funnel or something. Also the views provided don't define the thing completely. 0/10 technical drawing.

>> No.9192150

>>9192149
What else do you need? A spinning 3D model?

>> No.9192151

>>9192149
Well, it's enough to calculate it manually and visually.

>> No.9192152

>90°
Tf?

>> No.9192156
File: 210 KB, 1332x680, Trichter-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9192156

>>9192150
Side view or complete top down/bottom up view. Right now the angle is only given on one plane. On a plane rotated 90° the upper end could be centered above the lower end or not since both the top down and the bottom up view are incomplete.

>> No.9192157

>>9192143
This. OP doesn't know what a right angle is. Saged.

>> No.9192159
File: 90 KB, 1222x668, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9192159

Right now these are both valid solutions to the drawing, and all shifting of the bottom plate inbetween, so long as it stays at a right angle in one plane.

>> No.9192161

>>9192159
Yes.

>> No.9192176

>>9192157
Anon doesn't know how to solve the other angles.

>> No.9192390

9972 balls is what I've gotten after a bit of messing around. The number is probably not accurate to one digit as there's multiple variations of how you align the balls, but it should be there somewhere around that number.

Even if this was bait, I had fun. Thanks

>> No.9192401

>>9192390
Or 11396.

>> No.9192403

The definition of fit is ambiguous also. Can any portion rise above the rim? Can you pyramid them up over the rim? There are several nuances to the top stacking that aren't defined.

>> No.9192405

>>9192390
>>9192401
You're both wrong, it's 10294

>> No.9192412

>>9192405
well nigger, care to show how I'm wrong please

>> No.9192414

>>9192412
Show how you're right.

>> No.9192422

>>9192414
ok give me a bit

>> No.9192454
File: 1.57 MB, 3264x1836, 20170926_193726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9192454

>>9192414

Sorry for relatively shitty handwriting, hope you can read it

>> No.9192459

>>9192414
Btw, I've realised a few errors like I stated in that pic above while I was writing and explaining the process I've went through which would yield more balls, but I'm still unsure about the last part lol

>> No.9192475

>not using derivatives

>> No.9192480

>>9192095
>sphere packing problem
>homework
come on, try to solve it. not just upper bounds. give me an exact solution and prove that it's optimal

>> No.9192529

50 x 30 x 20 = 30,000

30,000 / 2.5 = 12000

>> No.9192558

>>9192529
subtract 5 for more precise result

>> No.9192572

>>9192558

12,000 - 5 = 11,995

>> No.9192600

Make a box of 2.5 cm in dimensions. That unit fits 1 sphere, which is not your packing coefficient, Calculate how many of those square fit into the trash can and put this thread into that thrash can.

>> No.9192607

>>9192600
It wouldn't fit if it was full of squares idiot

>> No.9192611

You can only fit one ball in the bucket because you're only given one ball.

>> No.9192615

>>9192079
how flexibel is the cup/the balls? which material? can you compress the balls? can you stretch the cup?

>> No.9192618

>>9192615
The bucket is metal and unstretchable, you can compress the balls they're made of a non-newtonian fluid.

>> No.9192626

>>9192618
in this case i say between 1 and 1000

>> No.9192634

>>9192626
I know from experience you can fit at least 600 in there so it's between 600 and 1000 in reality.

Any brainiacs around that can narrow it down more?

>> No.9192646

>>9192607
>sci calls engineers morons

>can't figure out simply situations where you apply math to real life scenarios

It's about the object being spheres, it's about how make a packing coefficient using spheres.

>> No.9192676

>>9192634
definitely way more than 1000

>> No.9192687

>>9192454
Which part of that proves that your result is optimal?

>> No.9192717

>>9192687
The question didn't ask for an optimal result.

>> No.9192740

>>9192079
i shoved marbles into my butt once

>> No.9192755

>>9192740
How many did you fit in?

What is the maximum diameter of your boipucci?

What is the length?

Did you stop when you couldn't fit any more in or did you not complete the experiment?

>> No.9192945

>>9192480
The filename literally says homework

>> No.9192947

>>9192079
Make stacks of close packed planes that fit.

>> No.9193272

>>9192687
It doesn't, it was more of a guess than a proper calculation. Look at the end part

>> No.9193281

>>9192079
>90 degree angle between top and side
>bottom shorter than top

Wat

>> No.9193289

>>9192079
1 because u only have 1

>> No.9193303

OP Here, about to go to bed, my homework better be done when I wake out you geekazoids.

>>9193281
>Bottom shorter than top

Have you never seen a bucket?

>>9193289

I have many balls

>>9192529

Closest answer according to my non-nerd calculations.

>> No.9193308

>>9193303
Fuck you nigger, show some respect.

>> No.9193316

>>9193308
How about you just do my homework poindexter.

>> No.9193319

>>9193316
kek no

>> No.9193321

>>9193319
I'm going to run through your house and nick all your tea towels fucker.

>> No.9193325

>>9193321
cool

>> No.9193327

>>9193325
Ok, I give up, you have won.

Please. PLEASE. Do my homework.

>> No.9193336

>>9193327
nope

>> No.9193365

>>9193336
plz

>> No.9193882

Make an FCC or HCP lattice.

>> No.9193887
File: 68 KB, 900x900, 1426048772566.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9193887

>>9192079
>90 degrees
HOW IN THE FUCK IS THAT POSSIBLY 90 DEGRESS YOU FUCKING MONKEY

>> No.9193893

>>9193887
OP is Chinese, his comment of "show your workings" is a quirk of a non-native english speaker. This "90 degrees" is an attempt to deceive you.

>> No.9193957
File: 8 KB, 147x319, FAMILY_GUY_OPIE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9193957

>>9192143
worth a laugh

>> No.9193963
File: 15 KB, 1201x674, balls.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9193963

>>9192079
looks like about 13 OP

>> No.9194116

>>9193963
/thread

>> No.9194164

>>9192079
calculate volume of bucket
calculate volume of 2.5cm cube

make an estimate

>> No.9194173

>>9192151
No it isnt, the bottom right angle and left side have multiple possible values.

>> No.9194194

>>9193963
>>9194116
that is only in 2d

>> No.9194198

1 because you only have 1 red ball

>> No.9194243

>>9192079
Undefined
The dimensions aren't defined in 3-d space so there is no "in"
You gave 2 ellipses and failed to define a depth

>> No.9194438

>>9194173
It is possible to do it, but you'll get many results as you'd have to do the calculation for each variation of angles, but there won't be infinite results as there's only a certain amount of combinations of those angles you can have, so it is possible to do, it's just that you'll get more results.

>> No.9194440

>>9194243

He gave flat circular bases and their radii, so it is possible to calculate lol

>> No.9194474

>>9192079
>>9192146
yeah that 90º with the given lengths makes that an impossible 2-D figure

>> No.9194721

>>9194474

Idiot, solve for the other angles

>> No.9194737

>>9194440
No, you can still construct different bodies from the information given.

>> No.9194755

>>9192079
That's not a ball, it is a circle dot. That's not a bucket, it is a quadrilateral.

>> No.9194782

>>9192079
...guys...
...seriously...
this is a trick question. OPs image only shows a 2dimensional red dot, not a ball.

>> No.9194809
File: 21 KB, 1201x674, homework2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9194809

>>9194782

There, I added the rest of the ball.

>> No.9194922

>>9192079
None, there's no room in 2D space for balls.

>> No.9195053

>>9194721
seriously? and this is /sci/?

>> No.9195152

packing problems like this are literally on the lists of famous unsolved problems.

If I'm not mistaken, a problem like this is one of the "millenium problems", that offer you a million dollars if you can solve them

>> No.9195524

>>9194737
Yes, that is very correct, but using common sense, a bucket would have parallel bases, yes? Meaning there's a right angle at bottom right corner as well which lowers the amount of possible combinations of the other two angles.

>> No.9196718
File: 68 KB, 700x700, 1445722183259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9196718

>>9192079
FUCK YOU