this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
476 points (98.4% liked)

196

19178 readers
136 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 70 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

They're traveling away from their origin at constant velocities, so they're traveling relative to each other at constant velocities as well.

The magnitude of the resulting vector (i.e., speed) can be calculated trivially since their movement is perpendicular on a plane, as the root of sum of squares, which many could recognize as the Pythagorean theorem:

√((5 ft/s)² + (1 ft/s)²) = √26 ft/s ≈ 5.1 ft/s

You can verify this by finding that their average speed apart is the same at all times (for all t > 0):

Vavg = √((t * 5 ft/s)² + (t * 1 ft/s)²) / t = √(t² * ((5 ft/s)² + (1 ft/s)²)) / t = √26 ft/s

[–] key@lemmy.keychat.org 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Don't forget to calculate the location where everything about them began and then include the curvature of Earth considering the latitude of said location into your speed calculation.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

No, they're spherical children in a vacuum.

[–] answersplease77@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

for approximation we can assume that the boy is a point mass and the girl is a lie

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago

Oh, so we have to calculate the gravitational attraction pulling them back. Fucking hell

[–] Hamartia@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Augustus! Save some room for later.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry

I couldn't find 'potatoy geometry' for a better approximation of earth.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You'll note that I already assumed that they were on a plane, not the surface of a sphere.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm also noting the stick up your ass. 🙄

If the potato remark and subreddit don't tip you off that I was being flippant, I don't know what will.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

No, the stick would be a one-dimensional line.

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It's been a while, but I think it's quite trivial.

After one second, they span a right angled triangle, therefore (using a² + b² = c²) their distance is √(5²+1²) = ~5.1 ft

They move at constant speed, therefore they seperate at 5.1 ft/s. That means at 5s it's just 5.1 × 5 = 25.5 ft for the distance and their speed is still the same.

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

~~They each move at a constant speed, but the distance between them doesn't increase at a constant pace. See my other comment.~~

Edit: I am dumb, and looked at the wrong number.

[–] De_Narm@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I'm trying to apply the most simple math possible and it seems to add up.

After one second, their distance is √(5² + 1²) = ~5.1 ft

After two seconds, their distance is √(10² + 2²) = ~10.2 ft

After three seconds, it's √(15² + 3²) = ~15.3 ft

As speed is the rate of change of distance over time, you can see it's a constant 5.1 ft/s. You're free to point out any error, but I don't think you need anything more than Pythagoras' theorem.

The question specifically asks for their seperation speed at 5s to ignore any initial change in their speed as they first need to accelerate, I'd assume.

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Ah sorry, I'm tired and made a mistake. I quickly made a spreadsheet (because keeping track of numbers is hard), and I was looking at the wrong column in the sheet. My bad!

[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You were tired so you made a spreadsheet to calculate the differential equation quiz from a meme?

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 3 points 2 years ago

Yes, compared to doing the calculations in my head lol

I work in mysterious ways

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 years ago

I don't see why the distance between them isn't growing at a constant speed.

At any given time t seconds after separation, the boy is 5t north, and the girl is 1t east. The distance between them is defined by the square root of ((5t)^2 + (t)^2 ), or about 5.099t.

In other words, the distance between them is simply a function defined as 5.099t, whose first derivative with respect to time is just 5.099.

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 39 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Depends on where they met each other. If they for example fell in love during the main event of a trip to the north pole, that would change things a lot.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

there is no north at the north pole so actually that's the one place it can't be

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago

If you're at the south pole, would every direction count as north?

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Sure, but there is a north say 30 ft away from the north pole.

[–] Missmuffet@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Its pretty convenient that its raining, which means you can ignore the coefficient of friction since the surface is slippery

[–] itsnotits@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

It's* pretty convenient that it's* raining

[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 31 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Differential calculus? That looks more like algebra. Their speed is constant.

[–] Teppic@piefed.social 9 points 2 years ago

I agree, it is not calculus, it's trigonometry.

[–] havid_dume@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Each of their speeds is constant, but different, and they're walking in different directions.

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 13 points 2 years ago

Their distance is the hypotenuse of a triangle with sides 5t and t which will be root((5t)^2^ + t^2^). So the distance at time t of the ex lovers will be root(26) × t. You can basically grasp intuitively that the speed is indeed constant and equals to the root(26)=5.1 ft/sec. Technically you’d use the derivative power rule to drop the t and get the speed.

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 17 points 2 years ago

Look. Teachers have some unresolved shit as well.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 2 years ago

It doesn't matter what the actual answer is; to both the boy and the girl it feels like C.

reminds me of that one song, proof that geometric construction can solve all love affairs or something like that

[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Who hurt the math teacher?

[–] dasgewisseextra@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The question states "how fast", not "how far", thus you need to give the acceleration at that moment.

At t=0, the boy and girl both haven't moved, so their positions are 0. The distance between them is also 0, as is their acceleration.

The boy's distance in meters is t*1.524, the girl's distance is t*0.3048. The distance between them is sqrt( b^2 * g^2 ). The velocity is the current distance minus the previous distance.

At t=1, b=1.524m, g=0.305, d=sqrt( g^2 * g^2 )=0.465, v=d-d^(t-1)=0.465m/s.

At t=5, b=7.62, g=1.524, d=11.613, and v=4.181m/s.

Edit: fixed markdown

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Velocity is not the difference between distances.

[–] ji17br@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s the difference of distances apart over time. Aka how fast bf is moving away from gf, aka what the question is asking for.

Yes, if you want to be pedantic, velocity a vector with direction, so I guess you’d have to frame the question relative to either the boyfriend or girlfriend, but I don’t think the difference between speed and velocity is part of the question.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Speed is just the magnitude of velocity.

My point is that OC was completely missing the mark by not properly accounting for time.

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hi, I made this in 5 mins because I was bored, but it's late and I'm tired, so could you please explain what I would have to fix in my comment?

[–] ji17br@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You want to figure out distance per second. One way to do this is calculate distance apart at t=0,1,2…

The difference between each point would be the average speed over that second.

Using sqrt(b^2+g^2):

t0 = 0 t1 = 1.554m
s1 = (1.554m-0m)/1s = 1.554m/s t2 = 3.108m
s2=(3.108m-1.554m)= 1.554m/s

As you continue this you will see they travel at a constant speed apart from each other. The reason this is working is because you need to divide distance by time. Dividing by 1 second won’t change the value of the number after you subtract. If you notice you can do (t2-t0)/2s and also get the same answer.

[–] dabaldeagul@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago

Ahhh okay, thanks

[–] ji17br@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

My mistake, I didn’t check his math. I thought he was saying if you take distance apart at t(n) and subtract distance apart at t(n-1) you will get distance/sec.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Only if you divide by time. Including units is an essential sanity check.

Also, the rest of the math needs to be correct.

[–] ji17br@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well that’s my point. The answer is correct in this specific case, because it’s already “built-in” so to speak.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No, their answer is wrong.

[–] ji17br@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I’m talking about my previous response. I already said their answer is wrong.