|
Post by IainS on Apr 22, 2019 15:43:19 GMT
[The green container would have less original, because you have taken a cup of 'pure green' and poured back in a cup which is less than 'pure green'. You have taken a whole cup of pure green out of the green container, but not taken a whole cup of blue out of the blue container, therefore the green container has less of the original. You have taken a whole cup out, but have put some back, so less than a full cup out. My post above explains ...
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Apr 22, 2019 15:48:53 GMT
I suppose it could be argued that green with added blue is still green, while blue with green added now contains some yellow, and is thus no longer pure blue. (Assuming the colour is reflective and not transmissive)
|
|
|
Post by patty on Apr 22, 2019 15:52:27 GMT
I have no idea and don't think I'll tax my brain cells thinking ...up to childmind grand daughter number 2 for a few days in Brum...I'll need all my stamina for that
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2019 16:46:14 GMT
I was told ..... but I have no idea if it is correct or not..... Originally easter eggs were hard boiled eggs (which as a child we called paste eggs but only at Easter, the rest of the time they were just hard boiled) which you decorated. On Easter Sunday you rolled them down a hill to symbolise the rolling of the blocking stone from in front of the tomb (the decoration was so you knew your own egg which you would eat afterwards .... hoping it didn't encounter dog poo on the way down) Paste eggs is probably a corruption of Pace Egg, as in Pace Egg Plays. Google knows all about it.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 22, 2019 17:28:50 GMT
The answer is they both contain the same proportions. So Easter egg on the faces of Tony and Foxy, well done the rest of you. Have another chocolate!
The maths is pretty straight forward though I think the intuitive answer is that given by T and F. Even though it’s wrong!
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 22, 2019 17:29:17 GMT
I was told ..... but I have no idea if it is correct or not..... Originally easter eggs were hard boiled eggs (which as a child we called paste eggs but only at Easter, the rest of the time they were just hard boiled) which you decorated. On Easter Sunday you rolled them down a hill to symbolise the rolling of the blocking stone from in front of the tomb (the decoration was so you knew your own egg which you would eat afterwards .... hoping it didn't encounter dog poo on the way down) Paste eggs is probably a corruption of Pace Egg, as in Pace Egg Plays. Google knows all about it. thanks for that ..... interesting read. I suppose I was exposed to it as a tradition, as both my parents were born well before the first world war, when according to Google it started to die out
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 22, 2019 21:43:36 GMT
The answer is they both contain the same proportions. So Easter egg on the faces of Tony and Foxy, well done the rest of you. Have another chocolate! The maths is pretty straight forward though I think the intuitive answer is that given by T and F. Even though it’s wrong! Well, let's see the maths then. I do sort of 'see' how it could be, that the cup from the blue container contains much more blue than green. It's a bit like if you are overtaking another vehicle that's doing 80km/hour on a road, and you are doing 100, how many metres are required for a 'proper' overtake - comes out as something like just below 1 kilometre. Or if you shine a torch from train going at 300km/hour, are those photons going 300km/hour faster than if you were just to stand still and turn the torch on?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 22, 2019 21:46:14 GMT
I was told ..... but I have no idea if it is correct or not..... Originally easter eggs were hard boiled eggs (which as a child we called paste eggs but only at Easter, the rest of the time they were just hard boiled) which you decorated. On Easter Sunday you rolled them down a hill to symbolise the rolling of the blocking stone from in front of the tomb (the decoration was so you knew your own egg which you would eat afterwards .... hoping it didn't encounter dog poo on the way down) Paste eggs is probably a corruption of Pace Egg, as in Pace Egg Plays. Google knows all about it. 'Easter' in Finnish is 'Pääsiäinen' (Pääs looks a bit like Pace)
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 22, 2019 21:51:50 GMT
The maths is pretty straight forward though As is knowing that "straightforward" is one word which doesn't have a space in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 23, 2019 6:04:08 GMT
The maths is pretty straight forward though As is knowing that "straightforward" is one word which doesn't have a space in the middle. But you know we prefer to meander here.
|
|
|
Post by IainS on Apr 23, 2019 12:02:24 GMT
The answer is they both contain the same proportions. So Easter egg on the faces of Tony and Foxy, well done the rest of you. Have another chocolate! The maths is pretty straight forward though I think the intuitive answer is that given by T and F. Even though it’s wrong! Well, let's see the maths then. I do sort of 'see' how it could be, that the cup from the blue container contains much more blue than green. It's a bit like if you are overtaking another vehicle that's doing 80km/hour on a road, and you are doing 100, how many metres are required for a 'proper' overtake - comes out as something like just below 1 kilometre. Or if you shine a torch from train going at 300km/hour, are those photons going 300km/hour faster than if you were just to stand still and turn the torch on? As you obviously missed it first time around :
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 23, 2019 12:15:09 GMT
Well, let's see the maths then. I do sort of 'see' how it could be, that the cup from the blue container contains much more blue than green. It's a bit like if you are overtaking another vehicle that's doing 80km/hour on a road, and you are doing 100, how many metres are required for a 'proper' overtake - comes out as something like just below 1 kilometre. Or if you shine a torch from train going at 300km/hour, are those photons going 300km/hour faster than if you were just to stand still and turn the torch on? As you obviously missed it first time around : The way the question was phrased I will have to disagree with you. Your explanation is based on having two measuring cups and removing the "neat" sample from each of the colours and transferring it to the other. In that case you are correct ...... However if there is only one measuring cup then the first transfer of fluid will be of a "neat" fluid to a "neat " fluid ..... but the second transfer will be of a diluted second fluid to the first. Therefore there will be less of the second fluid transferred to the first fluid as part of it will be the original being returned ...... the exact percentages being dependant on the ratio of the measuring cup to the containers.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 23, 2019 12:54:57 GMT
As you obviously missed it first time around : The way the question was phrased I will have to disagree with you. Your explanation is based on having two measuring cups and removing the "neat" sample from each of the colours and transferring it to the other. In that case you are correct ...... However if there is only one measuring cup then the first transfer of fluid will be of a "neat" fluid to a "neat " fluid ..... but the second transfer will be of a diluted second fluid to the first. Therefore there will be less of the second fluid transferred to the first fluid as part of it will be the original being returned ...... the exact percentages being dependant on the ratio of the measuring cup to the containers. No that is wrong. Provided the volume transferred each way is the same, the result is that the concentration of original vs other colourant are the same for both containers. Here is a worked example which I think is easier to understand than some algebraic formula. Containers have 100ml, cup is 10ml. So we have green container 100ml, blue container 100ml Transfer 10ml from green to blue. Now you have 90 ml in green and 110ml in blue, comprising 100ml blue and 10ml green. Stir. Now take out 10 ml of the mixture. This will contain 10/110 ie 9.0909% of the mixture which will comprise 9.0909% of 100ml of blue = 9.0909ml, and 9.0909% of the 10ml of the green, ie 0.90909% (percentages rounded a bit, the 90s repeat to infinity). This will leave 100 - 9.0909 = 90.909 ml of blue and 10 - 0.90909 = 9.0909 ml of green. Pouring the cup back into the 90ml of green will give the 90 + 0.90909 = 90.909 ml of green. Also poured in from the cup is the 9.0909 ml of blue. Thus the relative concentrations are identical. Which does seem counterintuitive, hence my interest in the puzzle.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 23, 2019 14:54:27 GMT
I couldent get away from the mixed colours either.
I hadent factored in the increased amount into my equations.🤕
Thanks Nick, it was an interesting equation.
On the other hand if your "good mixing" isent quite good enough then it wont quite work.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 23, 2019 15:03:43 GMT
Thanks Nick. Johnv's thought process reflects mine at first, but then I did realise that one is taking more blue out of the blue than green that's coming back out of the blue. Sometimes it's hard to get one's mind around things like this. There's a similar riddle about the missing £ when in fact there is no missing £, it just looks like there is, and even when you look from both sides it's puzzling.
|
|