+0  
 
0
289
9
avatar
A "wide screen" TV has an aspect ratio of 16:9. find the length of a diagonal on a wide screen TV screen that has the same height as the screen from my previous question.
Guest Dec 18, 2013
Sort: 

9+0 Answers

 #1
avatar
0
O_o
W*F!!! Where do these teachers come up with this stuff?? Sorry I can't help you
Guest Dec 18, 2013
 #2
avatar
0
You take the aspect ratio and the hight together.
OVEOUSLY!
Yall need to pay attention in class!
Guest Dec 18, 2013
 #3
avatar+91465 
0
Marshall:

A "wide screen" TV has an aspect ratio of 16:9. find the length of a diagonal on a wide screen TV screen that has the same height as the screen from my previous question.


You expect us to read a different question before we can answer this one??

What is aspect ratio; is that length to height ?
Melody  Dec 18, 2013
 #4
avatar+91465 
0
Same as the other one only you have to work out the initial diagonal ratio. (using 16 and 9)
Melody  Dec 18, 2013
 #5
avatar+330 
0
A "wide screen" TV has an aspect ratio of 16:9. find the length of a diagonal on a wide screen TV screen that has the same height as the screen from my previous question.

Reply -----

Use the height found from the previous equation then rearrange the equation to solve for D.

Height= D * SQR(H 2)/(W 2+H 2)
Width= W/H * D * SQR(H 2)/(W 2+H 2)

Where D is the diagonal measure and
W and H are the aspect ratio expressed as W:H.

This is the rearrangement:
D = Height / SQR((H 2)/(W 2+H 2))

If you don't mind, post your answer. The feed back is helpful in determining whether we (the tutors) are helpful and efficient, and not just responding to trolls and snarks.

--D--
DavidQD  Dec 18, 2013
 #6
avatar
0
DavidQD:

A "wide screen" TV has an aspect ratio of 16:9. find the length of a diagonal on a wide screen TV screen that has the same height as the screen from my previous question.

Reply -----

Use the height found from the previous equation then rearrange the equation to solve for D.

Height= D * SQR(H2)/(W2+H2)
Width= W/H * D * SQR(H2)/(W2+H2)

Where D is the diagonal measure and
W and H are the aspect ratio expressed as W:H.

This is the rearrangement:
D = Height / SQR((H2)/(W2+H2))

If you don't mind, post your answer. The feed back is helpful in determining whether we (the tutors) are helpful and efficient, and not just responding to trolls and snarks.

--D--



Thanks but my teacher unassigned it so im good! I'm not a troll and i really appreciate the help!
Guest Dec 19, 2013
 #7
avatar+91465 
0
Marshall:
DavidQD:

A "wide screen" TV has an aspect ratio of 16:9. find the length of a diagonal on a wide screen TV screen that has the same height as the screen from my previous question.

Reply -----

Use the height found from the previous equation then rearrange the equation to solve for D.
........
This is the rearrangement:
D = Height / SQR((H2)/(W2+H2))

If you don't mind, post your answer. The feed back is helpful in determining whether we (the tutors) are helpful and efficient, and not just responding to trolls and snarks.

--D--


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks but my teacher unassigned it so im good! I'm not a troll and i really appreciate the help!


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall, David did a lot of work for you.
I know that you did respond, and that was polite of you, but I think you could have made an attempt to answer the/his question properly.
He wanted to know if he had helped you to learn something - or if he didn't - whichever was the case.
I am not trying to give you a hard time, I am just trying to help you understand it from our point of view.
I hope a lot of other people read this as well, it is not just aimed at you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David, what is a snark?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melody  Dec 19, 2013
 #8
avatar+330 
0
Hi Melody,

A snark, in this context, is a particular type of troll who intentionally, and usually subtly, creates a contemptuous or dismissive environment. Such a person might do this by posting and feigning interest in a complex equation just to watch us perform like trained monkeys. Snarks are usually more difficult to sniff out than regular trolls. Trolls usually attack a group at large, while a snark will target individuals.

Some snarks will go to the opposite extremes by asking for the solutions to questions like what is 1+1. While this is an obvious snark (and is actually funny), others are less so: such as, "what is the tax on 113.98." The original question may have not been a snark; but, judging by the plethora of absurd responses and additional lame questions, it became one rather quickly. So much so, I thought about snarking it myself.

The problem is, this kind of thing encourages mediocrity and conformity to intellectual and academic ignorance. It substitutes a critical vocabulary for critical thinking, and discourages people from learning because they have to wade through an ocean of detritus. It also discourages the tutors from teaching because their voice is lost in a sea of scat.

Even so, I would rather error on the side of caution and answer a (subtle) snarky, but otherwise legitimate, question because many can read it and learn from it -- even if the original author's intent was contempt.

BTW, thank you for pointing out that my obiter dictum was not directed at Marshall. Based on his response, he may have thought so. While it’s true I did not think his question was a snark or troll bait, (else I would not have replied), I was beginning to wonder if I was reaching my audience or even if there was still an audience to reach. I suspect you sometimes think this, too.

It seems sometimes that the petitioners think it’s some type of automaton replying to their question. Considering the power of modern computers programs to solve and explain complex math equations in exactly that manner, I shouldn’t be surprised. The computers lack only the ineffable and nuanced behaviors of human communication.

From the petitioners point of view there is not much difference: we teach high level science and maths: only machines and machine-like people do this. Although considering some of my peers, and large portions of my own character, I’d be hard-pressed to challenge the concept. As computers approach the quantum state we may be hearing replies like “Snark detected. Access denied!”

While a response quells most of the speculation, it also can elevate the answer to the next level. For example, a question by mbm » Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:42 am “what is the sum of digits of the number 2^1000”. I didn’t really know if he meant the sum of all digits that represent this number in base 10 (a type of CRC) or the sum of all numbers from 1 to 2^1000. If he had responded, I could have pointed him to Gauss’ summation formula. One would truly appreciate Gauss, if this were an assignment. I suspect this question was a snark.

I spent weeks perusing this site before deciding to post responses. You (your posts) were a determining factor in doing so. I really admire what you do! This site at its current state of development would border on worthless without you. Your posts represent nearly 7% of all post and close to 10 times that of the next highest registered user. (what’s the opposite of snark? Suck-up? Probably “toady?” Fair suck of the sav!)

This site has great potential. It’s unusual for a modern BB site to allow posts without requiring users to register and log in. However, this freedom will allow the trolls and snarks to eventually overwhelm the site. Troll activity seems to have increased in the past few weeks. Hopefully, the webmasters will rise to the occasion and implement modern standards and protocols, before the academically skilled get tired of it and leave. We have thick skin… we can handle any troll or snark until reinforcements arrive.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that "Snark" has a mathematical meaning too: it's a cubic graph that is connected and bridgeless. A bridge is the edge of a connected graph that does not lie on any circle (or sub cycle). Martin Gardner, an American mathematician, used this term for this type of graph. Obviously, an admirer of Lewis Carroll: a mathematician and creator of snarks.

--D--
DavidQD  Dec 19, 2013
 #9
avatar+91465 
0
Hi David,
Thank you for the information and for your support.

I stumbled upon this forum less than 3 months ago. At that time is was little more than a low level chat room for children. Only a few maths questions were being posted and very few of those attracted any serious answers. I was only just discovering the joy of forums at that time and I recognised that this had the potential to be a jewel.

In three short months the forum has moved to where it is today. Now there is a group of core users, all of whom are really nice young people. Bullying has almost been abolished. Some of the core people let the potential bully know very quickly that his/her behaviour is not appreciated and, to my surprise, potential bullies seem modify their behaviour accordingly.
I don't mind having some snarky behaviour. It is a children's forum after all and most are just having fun. I find the revolving percent question quite amusing. What does worry me is that I think someone has tweaked the programming. That percent question is appearing in a number of 'new' posts. This is of particular concern because when the young person tires of the forum and moves on, his/her viral legacy is likely to stay behind.

The webmasters are conspicuously silent on this site. I have sent them a few messages and they have never responded. Very occasionally the administrators do post a calculator output but it is very random and never comes with any explanation. Of course it may not even be the administrators. Anyone can call themselves admin in this forum. In almost all ways it would be better if people had to register in order to make posts. The webmasters really don't seem to care what goes on here.

Some of the other forum users are starting to answer questions on a regular basis, and some of those people are very capable. I really try to encourage this, teaching is a learned skill too, it is a skill that some are very keen to develop. I want this forum to be self sustaining. If it continues to be reliant on only one or two 'teachers' then it is not likely to have longevity. I could probably bring in more high level people but I don't really want to do that. I want the children to mould their own forum. I too have learned a lot, mainly by seeking out you tube clips and other information to aid with my answers. I only discovered Latex about a month ago and I am quite proud of my use of it now. Some of the other users have also taught me things. Only the other day, a seven year old core member taught me what 'tia' meant (in Spanish).

I am now to a point where I want to develop more interactivity. People learn better if it is interactive and plus, like you said, there is not a lot of point doing excess teaching if no one is actually listening. I am sure many of the children don't realise that 'real' people answer their questions. Maybe I am too forgiving but I think that this is the nature of the child and most of the time I am prepared to wear it.

There is a facility for private messages here but I don't think it works for me. I have received messages but the replies that I send appear to remain in my out box. Maybe their server doesn't handle Australia. This is a disappointment for me; I would really like to be able to send private messages sometimes.

Anyway, thank you for your support and welcome to Web2.0calc forum. I hope you stay and become a part of our happy community.
Melody.

Snark - Graph theory.JPG
Melody  Dec 20, 2013

9 Online Users

We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.  See details