RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted May 11, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 11, 2012 Qi...? Reminds me instantly of Manuel from Fawlty Towers... "Que?" Doubt he'd pass the scholarship exam either! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kintbury jon Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 QED In ten years of teaching i've come across this only once. A lad liked putting this at the end of any investigative question - he was a boffin in the making! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted May 12, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 12, 2012 QED Question Eventually Done! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium BR60103 Posted May 13, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted May 13, 2012 Quite Easily Done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonB Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Having Latin forced upon us at an old fashioned (and excellent!) Grammar School, we also had QED applied in the proof of all those geometry theories. Quad Erat Demonstrandum (IIRC, and I don't remember the proofs either!) (what was to be shown / demonstrated) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 ...Quad Erat Demonstrandum ... Strictly speaking, "quad..." would only be used for proving stuff was rectangular, otherwise "quod erat demonstrandum" would have to do. (smiley face wearing mortar board and gown) That's enough Latin pedantry for now, anyone know the Yorkshire version? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 The one I was taught - Quite Enough Done Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted May 13, 2012 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted May 13, 2012 The maths teacher used to bang his chalk on the board and shout "Queen Elfrida's Dead!". And we all shouted back "But Ethelred wasn't ready!". Happy days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold SHMD Posted May 15, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted May 15, 2012 Doing “Long Division†with Roman Numerals was taught at degree level during the “Empireâ€. It involved using anything to hand and having the skill to manipulate it all, again, by hand. (Scratch building.) Later new techniques and tools come in and “Long Division†became easier. You still do things by hand but all the bits are broken down into easily manageable parts, which must still be assembled in the correct order. (Kit building.) Now, calculators and computers do the, (any), division for you. (RTR!) But you still have to apply the answer correctly, or even put the relevant numbers in in the first place! 22/7=3rem1 1*10=10 10/7=1rem3 3*10=30 30/7=4rem2 2*10=20 20/7=2rem6 6*10=60 60/7=8rem4 4*10=40 40/7=5rem5 5*10=50 50/7=7rem1 1*10=10 10/7=1rem3 3*10=30 30/7=4rem2 Now taking the 1st digit BEFORE the “rem's†and putting a decimal point just after the 1st digit you get:- 3.14285714 3.14159267 was my original answer in post #3, giving an error of %4.02331364002. (OK, I cheated and used a RTR calculator here.) Close enough for me who has been know to use 3 and a bit in real life!!! I know there are enough members, on here, who have used 22/7. Thus, when it comes to mathematics, I am kit building the answers! Kev. For more details see thread:- http://www.rmweb.co....ilding-in-2012/ What a load of rubbish! I do the hard bit, by hand and in my head, to work out 22/7 and then – because it is easier(?) – I use a calculator to work out the percentage error. What an error that was! The damned calculator displayed so many sodding decimal places that I didn't notice the “e-4†at the end! Plus, I must have had a few too many jars of 'sanity inhibitor' to notice that +4% was too high and that the real error is just a tad over 0.04 percent! Kev. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.