I used to care for a tree frog with a croak I could mimic. Anytime I was nearby I’d do it and set them off in response. My understanding (which is limited and like 12 years ago) was that I had a male frog who was trying to one up me in response so he would get all the mates
Sure! I tried to indicate with the red and green lines hastily added in MS Paint, but the gist of it is when water goes around a curve, it doesn’t flow perfectly in the middle. The majority of the water hugs the outer wall (the cutbank) and is traveling faster. As it’s faster, it takes more sediment with it, thus deepening that part of the river. The deepest point in a river is part of a line called a thalweg. You can see it all summarized in the image below.
Thank you for the explanation! I would however say it’s the exact opposite of how a racecar goes around a track, because they try to take the inside of corners rather than the outside.
Fahrenheit is actually a base-ten system, where 0° was the freezing temperature of a salt/water mixture used in laboratories in the 18th century, and 100° was supposed to be a human’s blood temperature. Another convenient perk of the fahrenheit system is that most European weather occurs inside it’s 0-100 range.
Eventually Fahrenheit saw the scientific need to know the freezing and boiling point of plain water, but instead of adjusting his system, he just found those values within his system.
The story I heard, and I don’t know if this is true or not, is that 100 isn’t just a human’s blood temperature, but specifically Mrs. Fahrenheit’s blood temperature.
That’s if you add two of the same odd number. The more general proof is basically the same though: let n and m be integers, then 2n+1 and 2m+1 are odd. (2n+1) + (2m+1) = 2n + 2m + 2 = 2(n+m+1) which will be even.
Or you can just like, understand that an odd number is one more than an even number so if you add them together it’s two more than an even number, hence even.
Which is the layman’s terms of the proof… I don’t get what your goal is.
Is it a building block for learning to read mathematical works? Yes, of course it is. Is this a ridiculous formalized statement? Yes, of course it is. But that’s the point. We need to practice the trivial to build the scaffolding to tackle the exceptional.
I am not wont to draw conclusions with minimal evidence, but your post seems like you are a malicious reductionist that may be suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome. I apologize in advance if I have miscategorized you based on this limited sample.
To confirm, you are asserting that the foundation for your answer (mathematical reasoning) does not require any mathematics to understand why it is true.
It’s very dangerous to take a reductionist approach and not be aware of the baked in assumptions you are using. For example, the terms even and odd (for this problem) are well defined as concepts for integers. Which means that your hand-wave statement is true as a result of definitions that were likely created to ensure this property held true.
The notion that “I don’t need math to understand why this is true” is like saying “I made an observation on a phenomenon and I don’t need science to know it’s true.” Which, as you are hopefully aware, is again reductionist and leads to a huge distrust of science from the science illiterate.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say. I just wanted to provide an easier way to reason why it is true, so that people who don’t do math as much as you do could also see the logic behind it. I don’t see how an easy to understand reasoning can be a bad thing?
Shit, it’s $15 per person in Denver. An annual pass would work on me for sure. I have the zoo and the science museum but a girl can only afford so many memberships.
science_memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.