Problem 317

A place to air possible concerns or difficulties in understanding ProjectEuler problems. This forum is not meant to publish solutions. This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods or giving hints how a problem can be solved.
Forum rules
As your posts will be visible to the general public you
are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything
that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.

This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.

In particular don't post any code fragments or results.

Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems

Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem

Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one


See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
amlesh44
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:50 am
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Problem 317

Post by amlesh44 »

For this question, can we assume that the firecracker exploded on earth? If so, since earth isn't perfectly spherical, it matters where on earth the firecracker exploded. So, what should we assume?
Image
scio me nescire
TripleM
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by TripleM »

A firecracker explodes at a height of 100 m above level ground... in a uniform gravitational field with g=9.81 m/s^(2).
All assumptions are provided in the problem.
amlesh44
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:50 am
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Problem 317

Post by amlesh44 »

Ah, thanks TripleM. Seems that I didn't read the problem statement intently enough.
Image
scio me nescire
x10
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by x10 »

Hello, I believe I have solved the problem, but I'm getting a wrong answer.
I believe it's an error from rounding, because I figured out a formula for the solution volume(as a solid) and tested it by overlaying graphics of my formula and the "brute-forced" parametrized equation of the solid composed of all the firework particles. They seem to match pixel for pixel(i.e. my solution seems to at least be close to the answer).

Can someone who has solved 317 please PM me and confirm if I have a rounding error? I'll send my graphs, equations & answer :)
Image
swatcher
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 8:40 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by swatcher »

I am in a similar situation - I haven't modelled my result but I am very confident in it, except for the precision. Would someone PM me so I can check my result?
TripleM
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by TripleM »

You can both PM me, but I wouldn't think a precision error would be that likely.
x10
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by x10 »

Yes, I can agree that a precision error is unlikely, because the rounding isn't anything special(i.e. the answer isn't X.100099999)

My error was that I had actually forgotten a certain formula and my recollection from memory lacked a certain term. I.e. my answer was (about) half of the real answer.

So, yeah, double-check your formulas and when in doubt - use Wikipedia, even for the really really simple things :)
Image
joho
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:45 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by joho »

So is it the volume the fragments move through before some fragment reaches the ground or the volume the fragments move through before all fragments reaches the ground which should be computed?
TripleM
Posts: 382
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by TripleM »

Any point that any fragment passes through should be included in the volume.
raggie
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:55 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by raggie »

double check
Used 10 instaed of 9.81 in my maths, that's probably what's going wrong :?
browni3141
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by browni3141 »

Hello, I did this problem with pencil/paper and figured the final anwer with my TI-83. I think there's a chance I lost accuracy by using the calculator. I think my method is correct, but I made one assumption in my calculus. That could also be the problem. Could I pm someone to see if my answer is close?

Edit: Nevermind, I never covered how to find the volume of a surface of revolution in high school. Anyway, I figured it out on my own. Very fun problem. :D
Edit Again: See my forum post for a generic formula. :D Also, could someone tell me how to get symbols like pi and theta in my posts?
Image
kapila_619
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 2:29 pm
Location: India

Re: Problem 317

Post by kapila_619 »

I am stuck in the math of this problem

I have solved it using normal math(volume of solid of revolution) and physics(equations of motion) but I am getting wrong answer

please can anyone see my solution and tell me where I have gone wrong

I am getting answer as
Expand
1280975.5978
JiminP
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:07 am
Location: Seoul, South Korea

Re: Problem 317

Post by JiminP »

I got the fomula
Expand
Image
(A,B are constants. It's secret)
and result
Expand
2406086.9412
but I was wrong.

Where's my problem? I can send you my pdf file which I wrote how above formula is made.
Image
matthewden
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Problem 317

Post by matthewden »

Can I get some clarification on a few things?
  1. Is air resistance something I need to take into account in this problem?
  2. And a slightly silly question: Does "It breaks into a large number of very small fragments, which move in every direction" (from the problem statement) mean that some of the particles will travel up? I would assume no, but just want to make sure...
Thanks!
Image
User avatar
Marcus_Andrews
Administrator
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:23 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by Marcus_Andrews »

matthewden:

1. From the problem description:
We assume that the fragments move without air resistance...
2. The fragments move in every direction, including straight up.
Image
matthewden
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:07 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Re: Problem 317

Post by matthewden »

Oh, yeah. It does say that.... OK. Thank you.
Image
mdean
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:05 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by mdean »

Ugh... So far, this problem has been a lot of ugly pencil and paper math. I hope I get this right the first time, because I am not going to want to comb back through it looking for a mistake.

I think I'm about one step away from solving this, but I see one interesting result which I have yet to determine whether or not it makes sense.

Update: crap... I'm hoping this is just going to be a simple mistake. I get the feeling my value isn't off by much.
Image
mdean
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:05 am

Re: Problem 317

Post by mdean »

And it looks like everything is checking out. Not sure what to do at this point. As far as I can tell, I should have a correct answer. I'm stumped.

Update: Never mind. Good old unit checks on physics problems. Problem completed.
Image
golfguy37
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by golfguy37 »

If two particles pass through the same point in space, should that point be counted twice in the total volume calculation?
Image
User avatar
Marcus_Andrews
Administrator
Posts: 1531
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:23 pm

Re: Problem 317

Post by Marcus_Andrews »

No, because the question is asking for the volume of the region through which the fragments move.
Image
Post Reply