Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 88

 
MetaDriver
The end killed me, the one with two and three balls. I don't understand the physics of the process (in this particular place), although intuitively I believe it.
---
The point is that the balls do not form a single body, so there will be more than one impulse. Each impulse "knocks" the opposite extreme one out of the group, and the ball that transmitted the impulse joins the group of stationary ones.
 
Contender:
The point is that the balls do not form a single body, so there will be more than one impulse. Each impulse "knocks" the opposite extreme one out of the group, and the impulse-transmitting ball joins the group of stationary ones.

Right. That makes more sense.

Thank you. (chuckles)

 
MetaDriver:

Yeah. That makes more sense.

Thanks, man.

That doesn't explain why 2 strikes out 3

If 2 struck out 2 and the centre one stayed in place, we probably wouldn't be intuitively surprised.

 
MetaDriver:
Somehow the first and second don't add up here. I'm dumb with formulas, but there's something wrong here.
Very simple: uX (shear force) should be a constant, independent of u and X, but uX^2/2 remains variable.
 
Mischek:
This does not explain why 2 beats out 3.
It's not just energy but also momentum that has to be conserved, if it's different then either one or the other doesn't work because momentum is proportional to speed and energy is proportional to its square.
 
alsu:
Not only energy but also momentum has to be conserved, if it is otherwise, then either one or the other does not work because momentum is proportional to speed and energy is proportional to its square.
does this contradict ? - "if 2 knocked out 2 and the central one stayed in place, we probably wouldn't be intuitively surprised"
 
Mischek:
Is that a contradiction? - "If 2 struck out 2 and the centre fielder stayed in place, we probably wouldn't be intuitively surprised."

Chetty didn't look carefully. 2 strikes out 2, 3 strikes out 3, 1 strikes out 1.

 
Mathemat:

Analyse. I want to solve it without ZSEG at all.

Let the small body come to equilibrium with the spring and stop. And the big one has not yet started moving.


u*x = MKg

The frictional force on the small body... but it's in equilibrium. The big body starts to accelerate. What's missing in this picture? The frictional force on the small body?

If the small body is in equilibrium, it is (m+M/2)Kg + F_tr = u*x. It is directed to the left.

So F_tr = (M/2-m)Kg. That's a load of nonsense.

It should be -u*x, as it is in your figure
Документация по MQL5: Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Константы индикаторов / Стили рисования
Документация по MQL5: Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Константы индикаторов / Стили рисования
  • www.mql5.com
Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Константы индикаторов / Стили рисования - Документация по MQL5
 
MetaDriver:

Chetty didn't look carefully. 2 strikes out 2, 3 strikes out 3, 1 strikes out 1.


That's right, .

It's all your fault, you slipped me some balls last night, my eyes are still going back and forth.

 
alsu:
Not only energy but also momentum must be conserved, if it is otherwise, then either one or the other does not work, as momentum is proportional to speed and energy is proportional to its square.

Collusion again...