CAT-holics


Home | Pages | Archives


Similarity in Cones

October 1, 2013 9:00 AM

Posted by catcracker

Categories: All, Mathematics

Tags: , ,

9 Responses to “Similarity in Cones”

  1. Thank you for this post… 🙂
    Another article on series ( input/ output ) and 4 sets venn diagram (with maxima/ minima) is seen. Please post an article that can help us.
    Really doing a wonderful job.

    By Saurabh on October 1, 2013 at 10:50 AM

  2. Saurabh, I was planning to do a post on 4-level Venn diagrams but haven’t yet got round to it (needs a lot of groundwork). I have a series of Co-ordinate geometry and Log posts planned so I doubt I will get round to it now before CAT 13. Let’s see though, I will try. Input-output I don’t think I can provide any value add as of now, if I can think of something useful I will post at some future date.

    regards
    J

    By catcracker on October 1, 2013 at 1:29 PM

  3. Dear J,

    If the conical vessel is replaced by a cylindrical vessel of same height(say 420) and water is filled to a height of 210. In this case, will the volume still be 12.5% of the original or 50% because won’t the vessel be half filled or am i missing sth here?

    By Jan on October 25, 2013 at 8:11 PM

  4. Got it! Sorry, the radius too won’t have changed proportionally right! 🙂

    By Jan on October 25, 2013 at 8:20 PM

  5. Right, it won’t be “similar figures” in that case 🙂

    regards
    J

    By catcracker on October 25, 2013 at 8:33 PM

  6. Sir..
    In the last question, Part C, how did you arrive at 2.375 gallons? I could understand that total volume will be 3.375x but would you please explain the next step..Thank you!

    By Parveen on September 27, 2014 at 6:11 PM

    1. It should be 2.375 x. Sorry 🙂

      regards
      J

      By catcracker on September 27, 2014 at 7:47 PM

  7. Sir whats the use of 3.3755?
    I understand that we need to add 19 litres behind 8 litre to make it equal as 27. so 19/8= 2.375
    But again it can be multiple of 2.375. Please tell me where i am making mistake in understanding

    By Gaurav on October 7, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    1. Gaurav, as I replied to the previous comment, it should have been 2.375 x. I used 3.375 as 1.5^3, and took 3.375 – 1 = 2.375 rather than doing 27/8 – 1 = 19/8, both methods are equally valid (and naturally yield the same answer)

      regards
      J

      By catcracker on October 7, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Leave a Reply



Mobile Site | Full Site


Get a free blog at WordPress.com Theme: WordPress Mobile Edition by Alex King.