Dear Long Live Yorke

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Okay, here's one to bake your noodle:Let's say that one of the gods is playing a game in whatever unphysical realm in which he dwells. There, time exists but certain laws of physics don't.Now, this god owns a lamp and he plays the following game:At time 0, he turns the lamp on, at time 1, he turns the lamp off, at time 1.5 he turns the lamp on, at time 1.75 he turns the lamp off, at time 1.857 he turns it on, and so on.So, after each instance of hitting the light switch, he waits half the time he waited before to hit it again. Assume that the light turns on and off instantly.At time 2, is the light on or off?

[Love4hockey 0]

Okay, here's one to bake your noodle:Let's say that one of the gods is playing a game in whatever unphysical realm in which he dwells. There, time exists but certain laws of physics don't.Now, this god owns a lamp and he plays the following game:At time 0, he turns the lamp on, at time 1, he turns the lamp off, at time 1.5 he turns the lamp on, at time 1.75 he turns the lamp off, at time 1.857 he turns it on, and so on.So, after each instance of hitting the light switch, he waits half the time he waited before to hit it again. Assume that the light turns on and off instantly.At time 2, is the light on or off?

I hate problems like this. I have a hard time thinking about it. If you keep turning the lamp on/off every t/2, it never gets to t=2. I'm looking forward to an explanation for this.

[timwakefield 68]

Okay, here's one to bake your noodle:Let's say that one of the gods is playing a game in whatever unphysical realm in which he dwells. There, time exists but certain laws of physics don't.Now, this god owns a lamp and he plays the following game:At time 0, he turns the lamp on, at time 1, he turns the lamp off, at time 1.5 he turns the lamp on, at time 1.75 he turns the lamp off, at time 1.857 he turns it on, and so on.So, after each instance of hitting the light switch, he waits half the time he waited before to hit it again. Assume that the light turns on and off instantly.At time 2, is the light on or off?

ON.I will explain later, but let it be said that I am the first to get it right. And I didn't look it up or anything, I'm just stating my guess.Hey I've got a 1 in 3 chance, right? (1=on 2=off 3=trick question you bastard).EDIT: Before he reached 2 he would be moving faster than the speed of light, basically switching the light on and off with infinite speed, so he'll like travel in time or something and never get to 2. That's my updated guess.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

If you keep turning the lamp on/off every t/2, it never gets to t=2.

But cetainly the god's turning on and off of a lamp can't effect the passage of time, so we will surely "get to" t = 2. And certainly at that time, the lamp must be either on or off. So, which is it?

I'm looking forward to an explanation for this.

Well, you're going to be disappointed, then.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

EDIT: Before he reached 2 he would be moving faster than the speed of light, basically switching the light on and off with infinite speed, so he'll like travel in time or something and never get to 2. That's my updated guess.

But in his god realm, there is no speed of light, so we need not concern ourselves with such things, at least for the purpose of this thought experiment.

[timwakefield 68]

But in his god realm, there is no speed of light, so we need not concern ourselves with such things, at least for the purpose of this thought experiment.

Then I stand by ON.

[bigkg 0]

Dear LLY,What's a quark?Sincerely,My dad met Richard Feynman once

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Dear LLY,What's a quark?Sincerely,My dad met Richard Feynman once

Wow, that's pretty darn sweet. Not to sound too much like my man Bill Clinton, but it depends on your definition of what "what is" is. Okay, I won't be so cryptic on purpose.Quarks are the building blocks of particles that we once thought were fundamental (rather, we probably didn't actually think that they were fundamental, but they were considered fundamental by a contemporaneous theory and therefore were fundamental until that theory was disproved). There are 6 types of quarks that we know of: up, down, top, bottom, charm, strange.A proton is really two up quarks and a down quark, so we call it: uud.Actually, a proton is really a large bag of quarks and antiquarks such that the NET number of up quarks is two and the net number of down quarks is one. A neutron is udd.Up and down quarks are by far the most common, and the other quarks are extremely rare to find, and are even extremely difficult to produce if you tried. They readily decay into lighter quarks such as up and down. Quarks are held together by things called gluons (it makes sense since they are sort of the "glue" that holds these quarks together). Quarks have fractional charge. The up quark has charge +2/3, and the down quark has charge -1/3. You can therefore see that this gives the proton charge +1 and the neutron charge 0, as we expect. The theory of quarks and gluons is called Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD for short. It is complicated and there are many properties that I haven't mentioned. But the quark theory is nice because it takes many particles and reduces them to combinations of only 6.Electrons are NOT made of quarks. Rather they are considered fundamental.

[bigkg 0]

Wow, that's pretty darn sweet. Not to sound too much like my man Bill Clinton, but it depends on your definition of what "what is" is. Okay, I won't be so cryptic on purpose.Quarks are the building blocks of particles that we once thought were fundamental (rather, we probably didn't actually think that they were fundamental, but they were considered fundamental by a contemporaneous theory and therefore were fundamental until that theory was disproved). There are 6 types of quarks that we know of: up, down, top, bottom, charm, strange.A proton is really two up quarks and a down quark, so we call it: uud.Actually, a proton is really a large bag of quarks and antiquarks such that the NET number of up quarks is two and the net number of down quarks is one. A neutron is udd.Up and down quarks are by far the most common, and the other quarks are extremely rare to find, and are even extremely difficult to produce if you tried. They readily decay into lighter quarks such as up and down. Quarks are held together by things called gluons (it makes sense since they are sort of the "glue" that holds these quarks together). Quarks have fractional charge. The up quark has charge +2/3, and the down quark has charge -1/3. You can therefore see that this gives the proton charge +1 and the neutron charge 0, as we expect. The theory of quarks and gluons is called Quantum Chromodynamics, or QCD for short. It is complicated and there are many properties that I haven't mentioned. But the quark theory is nice because it takes many particles and reduces them to combinations of only 6.Electrons are NOT made of quarks. Rather they are considered fundamental.

Yea my dad saw him speak one time at some university, don't remember which one. Another story regarding Feynman. My Astronomy professor last semester while working on his Ph D at CalTech said Feynman drove around campus in a van with the Feynman diagram painted on the sides, I thought that was funny.Anyways, I think I understood that explanation. I'm not sure why I asked, I saw it somewhere and didn't understand it.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yea my dad saw him speak one time at some university, don't remember which one. Another story regarding Feynman. My Astronomy professor last semester while working on his Ph D at CalTech said Feynman drove around campus in a van with the Feynman diagram painted on the sides, I thought that was funny.Anyways, I think I understood that explanation. I'm not sure why I asked, I saw it somewhere and didn't understand it.

One of my professors who went to CalTech said that Feynman taught him how to blow smoke rings, as he readily demonstrated to us in class.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Dear LLY,If AS = 50,000 T = 5,000 DPI = 45,000 C = 35,000 S = 10,000 I = 5,000 G = 6,000 AD = 50,000 and G increases by 1,000 and the MPC is 4/5, what are our new equilibrium numbers?Signed,This is due tommorow.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

PARTICLES IN THE UNIVERSE!!These are the particles in the universe:Quarks (in order of mass):up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom + antiparticlesLeptons:electron, muon, tau + antiparticleselectron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino + antiparticlesBosons:Photon, graviton*, gluon, W+, W-, Z, Higgs***Not a part of the so called Standard Model**Has not been discovered yetThat's it, really. In our current leading theory, there's nothing more. 30 or so particles make up not only every thing in the universe, but every interaction between things. Pretty simple, really.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Dear LLY,If AS = 50,000 T = 5,000 DPI = 45,000 C = 35,000 S = 10,000 I = 5,000 G = 6,000 AD = 50,000 and G increases by 1,000 and the MPC is 4/5, what are our new equilibrium numbers?Signed,This is due tommorow.

English, doc, speak English.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

English, doc, speak English.

goddammit.Its an economics problem. Not very hard. I was just bored.And I messed up the numbers anyway. Not being able to read is really hurting me.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

goddammit.Its an economics problem. Not very hard. I was just bored.And I messed up the numbers anyway. Not being able to read is really hurting me.

So what do the terms mean? I've never taken econ.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

So what do the terms mean? I've never taken econ.

AS = aggregate supply (income)T = taxesDPI = disposable incomeC = consumptionS = savingsI = investmentsG = government expendituresAD = aggregate demandAD = C + I + G (thats where the numbers are wrong)MPC = marginal propensity to consumeI missed the class where it was taught, so I wouldnt assume I have that exactly right.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

...I missed the class where it was taught, so I wouldnt assume I have that exactly right.

Yawnsville. If it doesn't have "tron" in it, I'm not interested.

[bigkg 0]

AS = aggregate supply (income)T = taxesDPI = disposable incomeC = consumptionS = savingsI = investmentsG = government expendituresAD = aggregate demandAD = C + I + G (thats where the numbers are wrong)I missed the class where it was taught, so I wouldnt assume I have that exactly right.

MPC=Marginal Private Cost?Edit: nevermind, you edited

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

Here is an example.AS = 50,000 | T = 10,000 | DPI = 40,000 | C = 25,000 | S = 15,000 | I = 12,500 | G = 12,500 | AD = 50,000 |If G increases by 1,000 and the MPC = 3/4 - what is our new equilibrium levels?You take the MPC and find the multiplier. 1 / 1 - (3/4) = 4 4 x 1000 (change in G) = 4000 or the change in AS, so AS = 54,0003/4 x 4000 (change in AS) = 3000 or change in C, so C = 28,0001/4 x 4000 (change in AS) = 1000 or change in S, so S = 16,000So now.AS = 54,000 | T = 10,000 | DPI = 44,000 | C = 28,000 | S = 16,000 | I = 12,500 | G = 13,500 | AD = 54,000 |AS = ADC + I + G = AD I + G = S + TSo we are at equilibrium. ( I hope).

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

I know what you're asking yourself, LLY.What if Taxes increased?Tune in tommorow to find out.

[Napa_Don 688]

How do I determine:-the amount of goodwill to record at acquisitiontron-journal entries required to record acquisitiontron-impairment test results at end of yeartron-journal entries required to record impairmenttron

[Napa_Don 688]

It's been a few days so here is the solution, and please excuse my apparent misspelling of "concentrated." I'm a Civil Engineer, not an English professor.

I dig your handwriting no homo. I'm always embarrassed because mine looks like a 4th graders and I'm a sophomore in college.Also,Dear LLY,When I first started out at college my professors basically all taught the same way. Post power point slides online, you're expected to print them off and bring to class, and then the professor would essentially read the power point slides, maybe do an example now and then. And very infrequently at that. I just assumed that since these were the standard hundreds of kids lectures and it being introductory courses, it was no big deal. That later in my schooling, the professors would focus more on real world examples as opposed to just basic principles. Now that I'm taking junior level courses, I'm finding that nothing has really changed. All of my classes are just the professors reading off of powerpoint slides and I find it more beneficial to just sleep in and miss my class and then do examples out of the book that coincide with the material or try to find more real world examples online and work those. Not to mention, three of five of my classes allow some sort of cheat sheet to be used during the exams. I am an accounting/finance major at a state school, for the record. The question I pose is this; Is this type of behavior standard at most colleges, because I feel I am getting jipped for what I'm paying in tuition? I've definitely learned more by doing my own study schedule as opposed to just the professor lecturing, but maybe that's how it's supposed to be. However, I feel that there should be more guidance than the professors are giving. I'm kind of rambling. I hope this makes senselForever young,Me

[coesillian 0]

follow up on thewater displacement question for all to ponder:In China they built a bridge to allow one river flow over another river so that waer traffic congestion could be avoided:Now there is allot of water on that bridge. Considering that 1 cubic meter weights 1000kg ( 2200 lbs) there is alot of dead weight that the bridge has to be able to withstand.Question: did the engineers who designed it have to calculate the added weight of boats ridding over it?

[coesillian 0]

Okay, here's one to bake your noodle:Let's say that one of the gods is playing a game in whatever unphysical realm in which he dwells. There, time exists but certain laws of physics don't.Now, this god owns a lamp and he plays the following game:At time 0, he turns the lamp on, at time 1, he turns the lamp off, at time 1.5 he turns the lamp on, at time 1.75 he turns the lamp off, at time 1.857 he turns it on, and so on.So, after each instance of hitting the light switch, he waits half the time he waited before to hit it again. Assume that the light turns on and off instantly.At time 2, is the light on or off?

I hate problems like this. I have a hard time thinking about it. If you keep turning the lamp on/off every t/2, it never gets to t=2. I'm looking forward to an explanation for this.

But cetainly the god's turning on and off of a lamp can't effect the passage of time, so we will surely "get to" t = 2. And certainly at that time, the lamp must be either on or off. So, which is it?

But in his god realm, there is no speed of light, so we need not concern ourselves with such things, at least for the purpose of this thought experiment.

I thought about a Taylor series with every other term being positive or negative like a cosine expansion or something , but then I realized that at time 1 he turns the light on and it turns off instanly, therefore when he gets to time 2 the bulb will be off because it will still be burnt out.

[runthemover 39]

napa,Since you're not going to class, go to office hours and either ask for help on things you don't get, ask for real world examples, or just ask questions about things you do know.This is where you get your money's worth. They'll know who you are and if you need a recommendation that helps a lot.Also, you can often get one on one time unless it's finals week.