help!-tethered cow problem
 

[QUOTE=drew]Mally,

Not to belabor the issue, but I feel you were rude to me in your replies to me in the coin thread. No circumlocution, there. If you read my posts and attempted to understand them, you'd realize that I have a point. Wacky followed it and now agrees with me. You tried reducing a 3-D problem with a 2-d perspective...incorrectly.
You may consider the problem closed, but it is not solved according to your solution. You may continue in your ignorance if you so choose, I can't stop you. But it's a shame that you can not accept a bit of a challenge to your discussion in a math forum, of all things.
Drew[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Drew: To settle the problem once and for all for you and the other posters, who contributed, and gave their opinions Please check out this URL from the TOI which has a readership of over a million readers in India and the Gulf countries. If the answer (two identical ones given) was wrong its strange there were no objections in any follow up.

[url]http://www.mindsport.org/archives/2005/november05/20november05.htm[/url]

You will find it in 'Googled-Coins Dept'. and a little before that you will find the question asked (to remind one) in a previous article of Mind Sport.
So Drew you and the rest are not infallible in Mersenneforum and its best we bury the hatchet.

The rest of your post is so full of holes in your reasoning it is worse than Eratosthenes' Sieve to say the least. I am tempted to tackle each point, one by one but I leave it to you to sort yourself out. You are your your best teacher in faith and morals but take my advice-don't be so dogmatic and a faithful follower of your mentors. Remember they may be wrong in many matters, and probably in most, and then its the case of the blind leading the blind. Where do you expect them to land you but in a ditch ?

Its an interesting study to me to study the psychology of the posters in this forum.

Some are genuine seekers of truth, others are know alls, and consider themselves infallible, others, thrive on the the name they have built up by demeaning others, and so on and on. I lack the time to give my full opinion as I have other more enjoyable social commitments on an evening such as this, to be stuck behind an in human computer, communicating to someone who has a coded name, with no idea of how old he is, where does he stay, and what is his nationality, to mention a few unknowns.

But I hope to send in a thread asking the powers that be to remove this cloak of secrecy and the unknowns in a poster and lets all see openly who they are and their weapons.

Im sorry to say there are genuine posters I recommended to this forum who have been hounded out of it, so much so they have joined other organisations and tell me they are happy.

Well to cut this post short, I'm very sorry Drew, if I have been rude in my comments to you and the others, and I admit I may have. Its the hectic pace in a mega city like Mumbai which perhaps I could not have taken in my stride at the time and sesaon.
So please over look my remarks and get on with it.

Im off to rock and roll and roll the evening away with loads of JW down my gullet and a lavish sumptious dinner to bless a couple in newly wedded bliss!
May God Bless you too. :rolleyes:
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode] and gave their opinions … there were no objections [/QUOTE]

Mally,

You should know that just because something is "popular" does not mean that it is correct. Therefore, this portion of your posting fails the test for valid argument.

[QUOTE] you and the rest are not infallible [/QUOTE] Kettle, meet Pot.

[QUOTE] someone who has a coded name, with no idea of how old he is, where does he stay, and what is his nationality, to mention a few unknowns. … this cloak of secrecy [/QUOTE]
I, for one, take exception to your attitude in the matter. It is very common practice for individuals to be known by nicknames. It in no way implies that they are attempting to hide their identity or other attributes.

Would you propose that William J. Clinton was attempting to hide his identity by using the name Bill? What about Richard Bernard Skelton? Most people know of him by the name "Red". Have you heard of Leonard Slye or William Sidney Porter?

In my own case, I have used the nickname "Wacky" for well over 50 years and have been published under it. I have also published under my legal name, Richard Wackerbarth. Anyone who has been reading this forum for such time as yourself should recognize my postings and, without much effort, be able to ascertain a reasonable estimate of both my age and location. I have left many clues about the Internet (ne: ARPANET) in the past 30 years.

However, I really consider your complaint to be in bad faith. For any legitimate purpose, have you ask anyone for such details and been refused?

[QUOTE]I'm off to rock and roll and roll the evening away with loads of JW down my gullet and a lavish sumptuous dinner to bless a couple in newly wedded bliss![/QUOTE]

I hope that you enjoyed the Wedding Feast and I wish you a Prosperous New Year.

Richard

Mally,
Your claim that the curve described by the cow is a cardioid is false.

Take a look at the diagram of a cardioid at the link you provided. Note that in the left-hand diagram the x and y axes are marked. Note also in the java applet on the right that the two points where the red spot is closest to and farthest from the silo are both on the x-axis. Since the cow will be closest to the silo when it has used up all the rope, it suffices to show that when the rope has wrapped completely around the silo the cow is not on the x-axis.

[quote=Snorko] Say the diameter of the silo is 1M and the length of the rope is 2M.[/quote]

The circumference of the silo is 2*pi*0.5 = pi metres.

The length of the rope is 1 metre, which is not pi/2 metres. QED

Drew has already provided a rigorous proof of the same thing, which you ignored and changed the subject to that of another thread.

[quote=mfgoode] have it your way Drew but TRUTH WILL TRIUMPH![/quote]

Indeed it will.

[QUOTE=mfgoode]:smile:
Drew: To settle the problem once and for all for you and the other posters, who contributed, and gave their opinions Please check out this URL from the TOI which has a readership of over a million readers in India and the Gulf countries. If the answer (two identical ones given) was wrong its strange there were no objections in any follow up.

[url]http://www.mindsport.org/archives/2005/november05/20november05.htm[/url]

You will find it in 'Googled-Coins Dept'. and a little before that you will find the question asked (to remind one) in a previous article of Mind Sport.
So Drew you and the rest are not infallible in Mersenneforum and its best we bury the hatchet.

The rest of your post is so full of holes in your reasoning it is worse than Eratosthenes' Sieve to say the least. I am tempted to tackle each point, one by one but I leave it to you to sort yourself out. You are your your best teacher in faith and morals but take my advice-don't be so dogmatic and a faithful follower of your mentors. Remember they may be wrong in many matters, and probably in most, and then its the case of the blind leading the blind. Where do you expect them to land you but in a ditch ?

Its an interesting study to me to study the psychology of the posters in this forum.

Some are genuine seekers of truth, others are know alls, and consider themselves infallible, others, thrive on the the name they have built up by demeaning others, and so on and on. I lack the time to give my full opinion as I have other more enjoyable social commitments on an evening such as this, to be stuck behind an in human computer, communicating to someone who has a coded name, with no idea of how old he is, where does he stay, and what is his nationality, to mention a few unknowns.

But I hope to send in a thread asking the powers that be to remove this cloak of secrecy and the unknowns in a poster and lets all see openly who they are and their weapons.

Im sorry to say there are genuine posters I recommended to this forum who have been hounded out of it, so much so they have joined other organisations and tell me they are happy.

Well to cut this post short, I'm very sorry Drew, if I have been rude in my comments to you and the others, and I admit I may have. Its the hectic pace in a mega city like Mumbai which perhaps I could not have taken in my stride at the time and sesaon.
So please over look my remarks and get on with it.

Im off to rock and roll and roll the evening away with loads of JW down my gullet and a lavish sumptious dinner to bless a couple in newly wedded bliss!
May God Bless you too. :rolleyes:
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]
Mally,

It disappoints me to see you so eager to accuse me of not providing sound arguments, and then see you refer to a popular consensus rather than provide a sound defense of your own. If you had bothered to spend 10 minutes working out the integral (per Wacky's suggestion) on your own for the coin problem, you'd have discovered a discrepancy between that result and your own. It would then be necessary to resolve this discrepancy and prove to yourself which result is correct and why, at which point you could enumerate the differences so we may all benefit, or have the opportunity to identify where you are mislead.

However, that's not the case. I have done this myself, and have attempted to communicate this to you. You have dismissed this as 'circumlocution' or 'full of holes', but you have yet to explain yourself.

It is not my intention to use insulting philosophical rhetoric about the psychology of posters and so forth. My interest is only in a mathematical discussion about the problem at hand, and I'm not about to take up this debate with millions of posters in India. I would expect, however, that had I posted in that forum, I'd have been received with common courtesy rather than condescending remarks about how you're so sure you're right that you refuse to entertain my argument to the contrary. That reeks of hypocracy considering your recent posts.

With regard to anonymity on the internet, Drew is short for Andrew, which is my first name. I don't really see the need to disclose my complete identity, because I don't think it matters in the least. My arguments need only stand on their own merit, not be appreciated or refuted based on superficial facts such as age, race, or career choice. Albert Einstein was a patent clerk. Would you have taken him seriously if you encountered him on an on-line forum?

I appreciate the fact that I can participate in on-line discussions without having to disclose my identity. Not so much because I don't want you to know who I am, but to keep my on-line communications private from people I know personally. I'd rather not have anyone be able to Google my name and read hundreds of conversations I've had with complete strangers. I assure you, though, that I have nothing to hide with regard to my qualifications to participate in discussions such as this. I just ask that you address my arguments with the respect and consideration you would any colleague or other acquaintance.

Drew

Wacky makes some good points, mathematically and otherwise. I particularly agree with the comments regarding Mally's concern about the "unknowns" surrounding the posters. Age, location, race, religion- though interesting on a personal level, these certainly shouldn't play much of a part in deciding who is correct in a mathematical argument. Some may be biased toward believing older people because they believe that a larger volume of experience is important, while others may feel the younger, fresher insights are more important. Shall we give greater deference to male arguments, because statistically there are more male mathematicians than female mathematicians? Or should we defer to the female mathematicians because they have overcome more prejudice to reach their position, and therefore must be very good?

This is the second time in recent weeks I've seen postings commenting on the use of nicknames for identification, as if people are hiding deliberately. If there is any arena where characteristics such as race, gender, age, name, etc. are unimportant, it is math. Base your decisions on the math, not on subtle biases you may feel (but not even know that you feel) about the posters here. The traditional representation of "Justice" is blind; that's how decisions should be made in law, as well as in math.

Norm

Very well put Spherical Cow.

help!-tethered cow problem
 

[QUOTE=Numbers]Very well put Spherical Cow.[/QUOTE]
:smile:
Happy New year to all you posters and hope you add more humour in your posts. As it is, you sound as MORONS.

Well after last nights binge here am I again replying by parody.
Please take it in the spirit(pardon the pun) that it is given !
:smile:
Reply by Parody.
There was ‘Mally’ and his mallet,
Who requested to bury the hatchet,
Do you think they’d leave him alone?
No, they bit him deep to the bone !.

There was ‘Wackerbarth’ ashamed of his real name
He blamed it on receiving too much fame;
Insisting on pricking the thoughtful bubble,
He was the one who started all the trouble!

On probability; commented ‘Drew’ on integration;
Of 3D to 2D was not permitted separation;
He possibly drew on a joint,
And never came actually to the point!

Then there was ‘Numbers’, of which he knew nothing,
Who raved and he ranted and had his fling;

To join him came ‘Spherical cow’,
His ego made him take the bow, :bow:
He spoke of blind justice in law
And then finally called it all a draw:! :surprised

Refrain:
Heaven only knows, what these programmers are up too? :question:
It’s a pity original mathematicians in this forum are few; :sad:
All praise to Ewmayer, Silverman, Akruppa and Xilman,!
They alone can evaluate a post within!

Pythagoras must have turned sev’ral times in his grave,
But there was no one to save Mally the brave.
Wolves hunt in packs it is known
But the Lion fights his battle alone
Refrain: :grin: Bravo
Heaven only knows………
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]Please take it in the spirit(pardon the pun) that it is given ![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]There was ‘Wackerbarth’ ashamed of his real name
He blamed it on receiving too much fame;[/QUOTE]

Now, I REALLY take offense!

I am certainly not ashamed of my surname. I will have you know that it is a very old, and respected, name. It was only a couple generations ago that my ancestors dropped the "von".

However, it still contains more characters than some systems allocate. Further, numerous persons manage to do a horrible job when attempting to spell or pronounce it. I've had to put up with that for as long as I can remember.

To borrow a phrase from Dr. Silverman, "You are a CRANK. Go away!"

help!-tethered cow problem
 

:grin: Hey Wacky. Don't be so touchy!
Haven't you heard the bard say
"Whats in a Name?
"A rose by any other name will smell just as sweet" :rolleyes:
Mally. :coffee:

Well my request to be treated with respect has once again fallen on deaf ears. That's okay. Mally can continue in his delusion as a mathematical God who cannot be questioned, and the rest of us will just know him for the crank that he is.

Drew

[QUOTE=mfgoode]There was ‘Mally’ and his mallet,
Who requested to bury the hatchet,
Do you think they’d leave him alone?
No, they bit him deep to the bone !.

...
[/QUOTE]
On the whole, I think I prefer William Topaz McGonagall. He had a better grasp of metre and a more skillful use of vocabulary.

Paul