Found a new clock!!!

[jmiicustomz]

Okay so I haven't found a clock but found the idea of one I must make!
What do you guys think?

[vitalsignsrn]

Looks like a fun clock. :-D

[Vanessa CW21]

Uhm yeah, I can't fix that one for you!

[Hairdude1]

Cool!

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by Vanessa CW21

Uhm yeah, I can't fix that one for you!

Vanessa, I am sure you could fix the movement I just need not ask you to redo the dial. Lol

[nickb732]

They all seem to be correct except 5?

[MonBK]

I would be late everyday with that clock.

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by nickb732

They all seem to be correct except 5?

It is correct. If you like you can go to wolframalpha.com and type in 3! And it will give you a detailed explanation.

[jmiicustomz]

The 7 is the only one not quite right as 6.999999999999999999 is not 7

[Lion]

Cool Beans!!!

[andromeda160]

Originally Posted by nickb732

They all seem to be correct except 5?

since the 9 is technically to the 1/2 power, you do the exponent first then multiply out the 3! which is just 6-9/9 to get 5 oclock.


order of operations

3! is just 3x2x1
4! would be 4x3x2x1
5! 5x4x3x2x1 so on and so fourth.

[nickb732]

Originally Posted by andromeda160

since the 9 is technically to the 1/2 power, you do the exponent first then multiply out the 3! which is just 6-9/9 to get 5 oclock.


order of operations

3! is just 3x2x1
4! would be 4x3x2x1
5! 5x4x3x2x1 so on and so fourth.

Ah, right... I multiplied the 9! first and then put that to the 1/2 power, which didn't seem to make sense. I keyed it in to my calculator as well, which makes me think that this order of operations is unnatural? Because then it should be (9^1/2)!, not 9!^1/2?

[linesiders]

[ksh977]

Originally Posted by jmiicustomz

The 7 is the only one not quite right as 6.999999999999999999 is not 7

It is correct as written on the dial because 0.99... exactly equals 1.

PROOF
r = 0.999...
0.1*r = 0.099...
Subtract the expression on the bottom from that on the top to obtain:
r - 0.1*r = 0.9
Factor the r term out of the left hand side:
r*(1 - 0.1) = 0.9
Solve for r:
r = 0.9/(1 - 0.1) = 0.9/0.9 = 1

[ksh977]

Originally Posted by nickb732

Ah, right... I multiplied the 9! first and then put that to the 1/2 power, which didn't seem to make sense. I keyed it in to my calculator as well, which makes me think that this order of operations is unnatural? Because then it should be (9^1/2)!, not 9!^1/2?

You are correct. The order of precedence says to do the factorial operation first, followed by the square root operation. The dial should properly be rewritten with the factorial symbol (!) outside the radical symbol.

[Bruin Watch]

Feels like I just reentered math class. LOL!

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by ksh977

It is correct as written on the dial because 0.99... exactly equals 1.

PROOF
r = 0.999...
0.1*r = 0.099...
Subtract the expression on the bottom from that on the top to obtain:
r - 0.1*r = 0.9
Factor the r term out of the left hand side:
r*(1 - 0.1) = 0.9
Solve for r:
r = 0.9/(1 - 0.1) = 0.9/0.9 = 1

I understand this and your point but I guess it also depends on your point of view. From a rational and logical standpoint your proof is correct, but in a more abstract sense it is not. Not to over simplify but if you stand 100 feet from the door and walk half the distance you are at 50 feet then half that to 25 then 12.5 then 6.25 etc. In reality you reach the door but if you could be so exact as to half the distance 100 times you still would not have reached the door.

[ksh977]

Originally Posted by jmiicustomz

I understand this and your point but I guess it also depends on your point of view. From a rational and logical standpoint your proof is correct, but in a more abstract sense it is not. Not to over simplify but if you stand 100 feet from the door and walk half the distance you are at 50 feet then half that to 25 then 12.5 then 6.25 etc. In reality you reach the door but if you could be so exact as to half the distance 100 times you still would not have reached the door.

Halving the distance an infinite number of times instead of only 100 times places you exactly at the door. This is the concept of a limit, which is the basis of calculus. When we write 0.99... (or equivalently, .9 with an overbar as on the dial) it means an infinite quantity of nines, and it is this infinite quantity that makes 0.99... exactly equal to 1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[nickb732]

Originally Posted by ksh977

Halving the distance an infinite number of times instead of only 100 times places you exactly at the door. This is the concept of a limit, which is the basis of calculus. When we write 0.99... (or equivalently, .9 with an overbar as on the dial) it means an infinite quantity of nines, and it is this infinite quantity that makes 0.99... exactly equal to 1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is true.. Whew!

[BNA/LION]

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by ksh977

Halving the distance an infinite number of times instead of only 100 times places you exactly at the door. This is the concept of a limit, which is the basis of calculus. When we write 0.99... (or equivalently, .9 with an overbar as on the dial) it means an infinite quantity of nines, and it is this infinite quantity that makes 0.99... exactly equal to 1.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes this is the basis of calc but as you get more abstract in advanced calc you become more and less precise at the same time. One could state that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line is one of the pillars of geometry but not in "riemannian" geometry in which the shortest distance between 2 points is an infinite number of arcs not a straight line.

I think we can agree that for the purposes of the clock what is written works but as you get more and more abstract and advanced a lot of normal things become questionable. I would also venture to guess that you have a better pedigree in this department than I as I have no degrees and am a gunsmith and pawn shop manager.

[ksh977]

Originally Posted by jmiicustomz

Yes this is the basis of calc but as you get more abstract in advanced calc you become more and less precise at the same time. One could state that the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line is one of the pillars of geometry but not in "riemannian" geometry in which the shortest distance between 2 points is an infinite number of arcs not a straight line.

I think we can agree that for the purposes of the clock what is written works but as you get more and more abstract and advanced a lot of normal things become questionable. I would also venture to guess that you have a better pedigree in this department than I as I have no degrees and am a gunsmith and pawn shop manager.

Pedigree or not, you have a good inquisitive mind. And for that you should be congratulated.

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by ksh977

Pedigree or not, you have a good inquisitive mind. And for that you should be congratulated.

Well thank you sir and too you as well

[vitalsignsrn]

Funny how all you mathematicians never noticed how small the hands were.

Leave it up to a woman to notice size.

[jmiicustomz]

Originally Posted by vitalsignsrn

Funny how all you mathematicians never noticed how small the hands were.

Leave it up to a woman to notice size.

I guess contrary to what we men want to believe size does matter huh?

[Too Old]

Originally Posted by BNALION

x 9 + 9/9

[vitalsignsrn]

Nah..was just kidding around. But the comment about the short arms made me laugh cause thats been a complaint by many posters for some Rolex styles. I like that clock, is a fun one. :-)

[andromeda160]

Originally Posted by vitalsignsrn

Funny how all you mathematicians never noticed how small the hands were.

Leave it up to a woman to notice size.

They should just extend the minute markers and turn it into a Radial Dial