blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 If you replace each person with 7 billion people, not just taking away 7 billion and putting another 7 billion in. That is, each individual person is replaced with 7 billion people. An example of such a process is: - I have two marbles - I replace each of those two marbles with two marbles - I now have 4 marbles - If I replace each of these 4 with another two each I'll have 8 marbles Ah... large numbers... very on topic for a discussion about young Will Hughes. I thought that but reading it again he does say "each",,,,replace each one with 7000000000. So yes, your track record with numbers is now matched by your reading ability............ 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> No no no no no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 If somebody nicked your marbles, you'd have none left and have to shurrup talking about maths! 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' /> ...if someone nicked my marbles I would be sad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 No no no no no. What's with the "no no no no"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 re·place (r.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve-pl.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacrs.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime) tr.v. re·placed, re·plac·ing, re·plac·es 1. To put back into a former position or place. 2. To take or fill the place of. 3. To be or provide a substitute for. 4. To pay back or return; refund. replace [rɪˈpleɪs] vb (tr) 1. to take the place of; supersede the manual worker is being replaced by the machine 2. to substitute a person or thing for (another which has ceased to fulfil its function); put in place of to replace an old pair of shoes 3. to put back or return; restore to its rightful place replaceable adj replaceability n replacer n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I think you meant replicate. So if you replace 7 billion people with 7 billion people, you've got 7 billion people. But if you replicate 7 billion people for each individual person out of 7 billion people you'd have 4.9e+19 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Are you seriously arguing this? REALLY?! Of all the things to do in this world you're arguing about this?! I don't really want to have to be this blunt, but this is just plain ridiculous. Simply put, you are wrong and what I said is a perfectly acceptable way of stating what I stated. If I have a car and I replace it with two cars, then I have two cars. If I have two cars and replace them with two cars each, then I'll have four. Just so there is no confusion about what you're arguing here: How about this, if you replaced every person on the planet with the same number of people on the planet, then once again replaced every person produced with the total number there was, this would still be more than 10,000 times smaller than the number you quoted. Take careful note of what is said here: "if you replaced every person on the planet with the same number of people on the planet". That is the key phrase here, notice how what is being replaced is every person on the planet. It was a silly and slightly confusing way of demonstrating what I was trying to demonstrate, but the meaning is quite clear there. If I had said: "if you replaced the world population with the world population", then yes, you'd be right, but that clearly isn't the case here as I specified that it was every person on the planet being replaced with 7 billion people. That is, for each person, 7 billion take their place. ...and no, I did not mean replicate, replicate wouldn't even make sense in this context. Again, why even bother arguing this?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Are you seriously arguing this? REALLY?! Of all the things to do in this world you're arguing about this?! I don't really want to have to be this blunt, but this is just plain ridiculous. Simply put, you are wrong and what I said is a perfectly acceptable way of stating what I stated. If I have a car and I replace it with two cars, then I have two cars. If I have two cars and replace them with two cars each, then I'll have four. Just so there is no confusion about what you're arguing here: Take careful note of what is said here: "if you replaced every person on the planet with the same number of people on the planet". That is the key phrase here, notice how what is being replaced is every person on the planet. It was a silly and slightly confusing way of demonstrating what I was trying to demonstrate, but the meaning is quite clear there. If I had said: "if you replaced the world population with the world population", then yes, you'd be right, but that clearly isn't the case here as I specified that it was every person on the planet being replaced with 7 billion people. That is, for each person, 7 billion take their place. ...and no, I did not mean replicate, replicate wouldn't even make sense in this context. Again, why even bother arguing this?! lol I still think replace is the wrong word by the way. Maybe you should have used multiplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 http://tstcpublishing.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/bemused-instructor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 lol I still think replace is the wrong word by the way. Maybe you should have used multiplied. What I should have said is that the number is larger than (7,000,000,000)³, but I've given enough talks on my work to realise that you need to tell people things in ways that will help them actually understand what is being talked about, rather than just number soup, so I was trying to say it in a way that people who didn't understand powers correctly could understand. I though that the idea of replacing each person on the planet with another 7 billion was actually an okay way of looking at it, but I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble grasping it, its clear that it wasn't clear enough for you. Let's try something different then, just for you. A penny is 20 mm in diameter, and if we were to line them up as a perfect grid, side by side we could treat their area as though they were square. This would give them an area each of 0.0004m². If we were to cover the entire surface area of the Earth in pennies, the oceans and all, the number of pennies used wouldn't even get close to the number that was given. If instead we used 1 mm wide grains of sand that took up 0.000001m² we still wouldn't even be getting close. Hmmm... How about we consider how much volume a grain of sand takes up. Let's say that they are roughly 1mm by 1mm by 1mm on average and treat them as roughly cubic. As such they'd take up 0.000000001m³ each. It would take ~1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand to make a sand ball the size of the Earth. This is still 500,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the number given. So how large would a sand ball need to be to have as many grains of sand as the number given? ... ...it would need a radius of ~500,000,000,000 meters. So... if you were to put this sand ball where the sun currently is, it would come to somewhere between Mars and Jupiter's orbits. That's how big the number posted was. This really has a lot to do with young Will doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Albert is definately back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I like Albert - he must have been one if the kids that listened to their Marhs teacher for a couple of years then realised they knew more than them and started asking difficult questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 What I should have said is that the number is larger than (7,000,000,000)³, but I've given enough talks on my work to realise that you need to tell people things in ways that will help them actually understand what is being talked about, rather than just number soup, so I was trying to say it in a way that people who didn't understand powers correctly could understand. I though that the idea of replacing each person on the planet with another 7 billion was actually an okay way of looking at it, but I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble grasping it, its clear that it wasn't clear enough for you. Let's try something different then, just for you. A penny is 20 mm in diameter, and if we were to line them up as a perfect grid, side by side we could treat their area as though they were square. This would give them an area each of 0.0004m². If we were to cover the entire surface area of the Earth in pennies, the oceans and all, the number of pennies used wouldn't even get close to the number that was given. If instead we used 1 mm wide grains of sand that took up 0.000001m² we still wouldn't even be getting close. Hmmm... How about we consider how much volume a grain of sand takes up. Let's say that they are roughly 1mm by 1mm by 1mm on average and treat them as roughly cubic. As such they'd take up 0.000000001m³ each. It would take ~1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand to make a sand ball the size of the Earth. This is still 500,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the number given. So how large would a sand ball need to be to have as many grains of sand as the number given? ... ...it would need a radius of ~500,000,000,000 meters. So... if you were to put this sand ball where the sun currently is, it would come to somewhere between Mars and Jupiter's orbits. That's how big the number posted was. This really has a lot to do with young Will doesn't it? Maybe if you said "added 999999999 people to the 1"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Maybe if you said "added 999999999 people to the 1"? ... You know you what, if you think the way I described it was so bad, please show me how you would have done it. Go ahead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='^_^' /> "If you multiply/replicate each person in the world by seven billion (7000'000'000) you would have (4.9e+19)". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 How many Will Hughes could you fit around the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 What I should have said is that the number is larger than (7,000,000,000)³, but I've given enough talks on my work to realise that you need to tell people things in ways that will help them actually understand what is being talked about, rather than just number soup, so I was trying to say it in a way that people who didn't understand powers correctly could understand. I though that the idea of replacing each person on the planet with another 7 billion was actually an okay way of looking at it, but I'm sorry that you seem to have trouble grasping it, its clear that it wasn't clear enough for you. Let's try something different then, just for you. A penny is 20 mm in diameter, and if we were to line them up as a perfect grid, side by side we could treat their area as though they were square. This would give them an area each of 0.0004m². If we were to cover the entire surface area of the Earth in pennies, the oceans and all, the number of pennies used wouldn't even get close to the number that was given. If instead we used 1 mm wide grains of sand that took up 0.000001m² we still wouldn't even be getting close. Hmmm... How about we consider how much volume a grain of sand takes up. Let's say that they are roughly 1mm by 1mm by 1mm on average and treat them as roughly cubic. As such they'd take up 0.000000001m³ each. It would take ~1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand to make a sand ball the size of the Earth. This is still 500,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the number given. So how large would a sand ball need to be to have as many grains of sand as the number given? ... ...it would need a radius of ~500,000,000,000 meters. So... if you were to put this sand ball where the sun currently is, it would come to somewhere between Mars and Jupiter's orbits. That's how big the number posted was. This really has a lot to do with young Will doesn't it? run that by me again .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/happy' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='^_^' /> "If you multiply/replicate each person in the world by seven billion (7000'000'000) you would have (4.9e+19)". That doesn't really help in offering an idea of what the comparison is though. Also, replicate is a terrible word to use here. It offers nothing and doesn't even make sense. You're not replicating anything, but now I'm getting down to your level. How many Will Hughes could you fit around the world? Will Hughes is 1.85 meters tall according to Wikipedia. We can go about this two ways, we can either have Will laying down and have him head to foot for the next one, or we can have him standing with his arms stretched out touching the finger tips of another on each side. The choice is basically irrelevant as a person's arm span is roughly the same as their height or at least close enough that small differences shouldn't make a difference. We also know that the circumference of the Earth is 6,378,100 meters at around the equator and 6,356,800 meters around the the poles. As such it would take 3,447,621 Will Hugheses to go around the Earth at the equator and 3,436,108 Will Hughes around the poles. Basically 3,436,108-3,447,621 Will Hugheses would be required. If they were to form their own country, they would have a population larger than Uruguay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 run that by me again .. If you took the number that DCFCfranco stated for a fee, £500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Five hundred tredecillion pounds) and you had a grain of sand that was 1 mm across for each pound, it would form a sand ball that if put in place of the sun would be more than the size of the orbit of Mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackNwhites Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 That doesn't really help in offering an idea of what the comparison is though. Also, replicate is a terrible word to use here. It offers nothing and doesn't even make sense. You're not replicating anything, but now I'm getting down to your level. Will Hughes is 1.85 meters tall according to Wikipedia. We can go about this two ways, we can either have Will laying down and have him head to foot for the next one, or we can have him standing with his arms stretched out touching the finger tips of another on each side. The choice is basically irrelevant as a person's arm span is roughly the same as their height or at least close enough that small differences shouldn't make a difference. We also know that the circumference of the Earth is 6,378,100 meters at around the equator and 6,356,800 meters around the the poles. As such it would take 3,447,621 Will Hugheses to go around the Earth at the equator and 3,436,108 Will Hughes around the poles. Basically 3,436,108-3,447,621 Will Hugheses would be required. If they were to form their own country, they would have a population larger than Uruguay. I'm don't doubt your superiority in mathematics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozza Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 If you took the number that DCFCfranco stated for a fee, £500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Five hundred tredecillion pounds) and you had a grain of sand that was 1 mm across for each pound, it would form a sand ball that if put in place of the sun would be more than the size of the orbit of Mars. Thanks for clarifying.. 'http://www.dcfcfans.co.uk/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.