FORUM FUN FEATURE!!! Advanced PlayaInfo Test - Answers

[Bumper]

1.C 2.D 3.C 4.B 5.A 6.C 7.D 8.C 9.A 10.D 11.A 12.D 13.A 14.D
15.B 16.B 17.D 18.A 19.D 20.D 21.D 22.D 23.D

There Ya' go.

[Jesus]

I have some doubts on 20 and 23.

20. In-Flow and volume-in-the-tank are not the same, are they?
Can anyone explain?

23. A non-moving clock gives the right time more often than one that gets slower.

[Beachwolverine]

Jesus, Let me try. I will use 5 minutes instead of 60 as the numbers get very large. However, from the example below, I think you can see what is going on..
In this case the cumulative gallons is 15 at the end of the 4th minute and 31 at the end of the 5th minute. The cumulative amount will always double (or nearly so) with each minute.

Minute gal. cumlative gal.
1 1 1
2 2 3
3 4 7
4 8 15
5 16 31

I agree with you on #23 - maybe Bumper can tell us where we're wrong - maybe there is a consideration to day and date.

Hope that helps,
BW

[Jesus]

Hey, thanks, there was something I didn't like in that way of thinking, call it incredulity but you proved me wrong.

[mckinzie]

You guys are making my head hurt

[sctx]

Originally Posted by mckinzie

You guys are making my head hurt

Yeah Kinz.... bet they can't do 12 shots of tequila and figure all that stuff out.... need an even playing field here.... damn sober people

[Bumper]

Yo Jesus et al;

I don't know if I can shed any additional light or not, but I'll do my best.

Question 20.
My interpretation led me to much more basic and likely less well thought out an answer than BW's. I looked at the question in reverse from the approach he took. I read it to mean that the volume of liquid in the vessel doubled every minute, flow rate aside. In that case, if it was full in 60 minutes, then in 59 minutes, it would only be 1/2 full. In 58 minutes, it would only be 1/4 full. In 57 minutes, it would only be 1/8 full, and so on. Probably a overly simplistic solution, and obviously nowhere as reasoned as BW's, but it allowed me to come to a resolution I was satisfied with.

Question 23.
Now this one I found a little tricky, because of how you read it and the assumptions that led you to, but I'll give you my take on it. I figure the clock that doesn't run at all is correct once a day. By that, I mean that if it's stuck at 8:24 AM, then at 8:24 AM every day, it's right. The other clock is also correct once a day. When it first starts running, it's right, but since it's steadily losing time - no matter at what rate - it's inaccurate the next second, and is never correct again. So, in my opinion, both clocks are correct once a day, and are therefore equally accurate. Now, I realize an argument can be made that the clock that doesn't run at all might be considered to be right twice a day, since it gets to be 8:24 twice a day, once in the AM and once in the PM, and I wouldn't argue that this interpretation is perfectly valid, but once again, I was comfortable with the way I approached it and satisfied with my solution.

Sorry if this little quiz ruined anybody's day by causing them to have to think a little. Goodness knows I hate to think any more than is absolutely necessary, but sometimes it's good to stretch a bit. Unused body parts tend to atrophy, and I can speak to that with some degree of personal knowledge :o ...but I digress.

I'd be interested in knowing if you folks would care to have this kind of exercise show up on an on-going basis, or is it pretty high on the indifference meter and you would just as soon I not bother?

[Jesus]

>> I'd be interested in knowing if you folks would care to have this kind of
>> exercise show up on an on-going basis, or is it pretty high on the indifference
>> meter and you would just as soon I not bother?

Just take a look in the number of times viewed, is the only way to evalute palpably, is up to you to set the minimum number.