GingerAle

avatar
UsernameGingerAle
Score2436
Membership
Stats
Questions 4
Answers 735

 #9
avatar+2436 
+6

Dear Blarney Banker,

 

Is it possible for you to compliment someone without slighting someone else, or slighting the complimented himself?  This is a rhetorical question. I don’t expect an answer. The answer is obvious, anyway: It’s “no.” 

 

Sir Alan didn’t use software to solve this. He used software (Texmaker) to compose and display the equations that he manually solved. He used Mathcad to test the solution. Sir CPhill also used software to compose and display his solution. His software is a web browser. Neither used software to SOLVE it. They both solved it “manually.” I know this is antithetical to your thought process, but it’s a fact.

 

Here are two recent examples of your fecal-based blarney:

http://web2.0calc.com/questions/magic-number-just-for-fun

http://web2.0calc.com/questions/there-are-240-animals-in-a-farm-40-goats-are-added-and-the-fraction-av-goats-is-tripled-what-is-the-new-amount-of-goats

 

Last year, I was taking an Abnormal Psychology class. Had I known of you then, you would have provided excellent anecdotal examples of parasitic human baboon social behavior.

 

Fret not! I decided to immortalize you in a work of art, because I finally found a use for a quarter-size marbleized plaster form originally titled “The Stud,” that I ruined two years ago. This statue was to be a complement to the marble variations of Venus de Milo that most of the male students were creating.  A careless swipe with a chisel changed him into “The Eunuch.”  That would have been OK, but while changing his eyes from those of lustful awe to those of fateful pain, I made them too beady and crooked; that seemed to end his life.

 

However, after getting to know your character, I reconsidered this naked catastrophe for a bit. I realize all he needs is an Irish puint symbol in each eye and a leprechaun’s pot of gold at his feet. His birthday suit already lacks pockets, so, with these additions, it’s ready to become the immortalization of the Banker from Killarney. This will be a masterpiece of trolling art, depicting the leader of worthless gnomes who wander homeless, void of active intelligence, leaving piles of blarney in the Kingdom of Camelot.   

 

GA

Nov 6, 2016
 #14
avatar+2436 
+6

There is no doubt that Heureka could create a computer program to find solutions for this math puzzle.

This would take hours to write. I took an introductory programming class, and know enough to say there is nothing simple about doing it. It’s not a simple iterative algorithm. It’s more complicated than a program to solve interest rate problems; you can do those on a spreadsheet.  

 

Anyway, I think it is unlikely Heureka spent the time to write a program to do this.  Here’s a solution not included in his list.

75 * 8 - (100 + 9) * (4 - 1) = 273

A computer program would have found this solution in a blink.

 

 The reason you think he did, is because you are the Blarney Banker who solves interest rate and finance problems by typing numbers in a computer. Any high-functioning baboon can do that. You never solve anything. You just present answers given to you by your computer. Even then you are often wrong. You can’t help it. You are not even a high-functioning baboon – you’re an unethical petty-minded banker, who was never made obsolete, because you never had any real functional purpose in the first place.

 

Heureka is a "Mozart" of mathematics. For him, these are variations on a theme of easy numbers -- an impromptu he could do while napping.  Maybe he did. Like HSC said, “. . . we slove (sic) our problems best in our sleep.”

 

 You should try hibernating for 20 years. Maybe it will help. Probably not, but you’d be known as Rip van Blarney Banker.

 

GA

Nov 4, 2016
 #2
avatar+2436 
+6

Guest answerer #1 obviously knows nothing about chemistry. His answer is brain-dead blarney from Killarney.

 

Yes, there is a correlation of mV to ppm of ozone – and other oxidizers such as chlorine and bromine. The basis for this voltage comes from chemical redox (reduction–oxidation) reaction equations. There is a specific formula showing the logarithmic relation of ORP voltage to ppm of oxidizers including ozone at  (STP: 25C @ one bar). The formula was in a specification manual for an ORP tester.  I’ve not found it online (yet).

 

The formula is interesting, but the problem is there are many factors that affect the voltage reading a probe may give. The pH is most prominent, but excessive organic matter (fish poo) can alter the readings too.  The natural chemistry of your aquarium will also affect the baseline reading. The best practice is to use this reading in conjunction with a separate test for residual ozone.  Once you know what is normal then you can adjust from there. 

 

I have two aquariums and the “normal” ORP reading is 420mV for one and 445mV for the other. A separate ozone test for both aquariums indicates 0.8 ppm to 0.9 ppm ozone.  This means the ozone is there and has the “potential” to do its job. If the voltage drops then the filters need attention or the ozonator is not working. 

 

Interestingly, even with these readings, both of the aquariums grow a slight amount of algae on the glass. This doesn’t hurt the fish, but it needs wiped off every few days because it obscures the view. 

Oct 20, 2016
 #1
avatar+2436 
+6

Look here

 

http://web2.0calc.com/questions/i-came-across-this-question-and-didn-t-know-how-to-solve-it

 

For

 

Sir Alan’s quick and compact answer.

 

Miss Melody’s Ideograph, comprehensible by non-genetically enhanced chimps. (Most of them, anyway).

 

Herr Heureak’s formal presentation that meets the demands of even the most strict math teacher—except for Sister Alice who taught eighth grade math.  (Nothing made that witch happy –except pain and suffering).

 

GA

Oct 15, 2016