Re:Think Differently
by dgabriel on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @01:11PM
(#415716)
I think there's a degree of deception involved when you try to pin stories like these to actual people. If you leave out the last line, yes, the story has value. But the fabricated link makes one more likely to dismiss the story as junk.
Re:Think Differently
by cperciva on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @01:00PM
(#415706)
I had a similar experience as an undergraduate, except that I didn't get the marks: I was taking a course on differential equations, and one of the final exam questions was to demonstrate that a solution existed to a given system.
I gave a very elegant non-constructive proof which showed that a solution existed without giving any hint of what the solution was -- but the instructor expected students to provide a solution. I ended up deciding that it wasn't worth the effort of formally appealing the grade, but I still think that I should have gotten the marks -- it wasn't my fault that the exam didn't ask the question the instructor intended to ask.
Re:Think Differently
by nostrademons on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @04:25PM
(#415907)
I had a similar experience when taking functions of a complex variable, where a midterm problem asked you to show that a solution existed and several students (not me, alas) found a non-constructive proof that worked without actually finding a solution. Unlike in your case, though, the professor gave all of them full credit.
I had good math professors. Too bad I wasn't a good math student.
Re:Think Differently
by andreyf on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @07:06PM
(#416058)
it wasn't worth the effort of formally appealing the grade
If the question actually asked to demonstrate that a solution existed, any professor worth her salt will give you credit for doing that if you point it out to her. It's quite possible you weren't given full marks because your exam was one of hundreds that needed to be graded that week.
Re:Think Differently
by jodrellblank on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @04:20PM
(#415900)
Whenever someone exhorts you to "think outside the box", they usually, for your convenience, point out exactly where "outside the box" is located. Isn't it funny how nonconformists all dress the same...
Re:Think Differently
by rokhayakebe on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @01:06PM
(#415712)
It is funny how we are being taught other people's truth as opposed to digging for our own. And then magically when you get to college or the working field they want you to come up with answers to real problems. Well "I don't remember being taught how to think for myself, but let me Google the answer".
Re:Think Differently
by jdbeast00 on Wednesday December 31, 2008 @02:00PM
(#415773)
just guessing: record pressure at bottom of building, record at top, whip out a table and find the height. I think this is how they used to determine the elevation of mountains.
I gave a very elegant non-constructive proof which showed that a solution existed without giving any hint of what the solution was -- but the instructor expected students to provide a solution. I ended up deciding that it wasn't worth the effort of formally appealing the grade, but I still think that I should have gotten the marks -- it wasn't my fault that the exam didn't ask the question the instructor intended to ask.
I had good math professors. Too bad I wasn't a good math student.
If the question actually asked to demonstrate that a solution existed, any professor worth her salt will give you credit for doing that if you point it out to her. It's quite possible you weren't given full marks because your exam was one of hundreds that needed to be graded that week.
- http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/10/outside-the-box.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240900/
PV = nRT; n = m/M
PV = mRT/M; V = m/(rho)
p*m/(rho) = mRT/M
p/(rho) = RT/M
(rho) = pM/RT
p + (dp) = p + (rho)g(dh)
(dp) = (rho)g(dh)
(dp) = pMg(dh)/RT
(dp)/p = Mg(dh)/RT
integrate 0 to p (dp)/p = integrate h to 0 [Mg(dh)/RT]
ln(p) = -Mgh/RT + c
take h = 0 at bottom of building, then
ln(p_at_h=0) = c => read c from barometer to get constant
now, at height h we will read p_at_h=height from barometer, then:
ln(p_at_h=height) = -Mgh/RT + ln(p_at_h=0)
Mgh/RT = -ln(p_at_h=height) + ln(p_at_h=0)
Mgh = -RTln(p_at_h=height) + RTln(p_at_h=0)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| height = -RTln(p_at_h=height)/Mg + RTln(p_at_h=0)/Mg =
| = RT/Mg(ln(p_at_h=0) - ln(p_at_h=height)) =
| = RT/Mg(ln(p_at_h=0/p_at_h=height))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
p in Pascals
g = 9.81
R = 8.31
T = temperature in absolute units
M = 28.97
I hope i did it right ;)
And also by years and years of meticulous surveying,
The Great Arc by John Keay tells the story of how the height of the world's tallest peak was measured.
Hint: You start from zero and work your way up :-)