N

#### namsag

Yeah your right i was too busy trying to stay on the bike to concentrate on the maths

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

N

Yeah your right i was too busy trying to stay on the bike to concentrate on the maths

Sponsored Links

On the first meet, they have travelled....... 1 river width.

On docking they have travelled ................2 river widths.

On the 2nd meet they have travelled.........3 river widths.

If they were to carry on and dock again ....4 river widths.

As the slow boat covered 650M of the first river width, it will have travelled

3 x 650M = 1950M... at the 3 river widths meeting point, but it has now travelled a further 350M than the river width.

Thus 1950M - 350M = river width of 1600M.

The end.

S

Just looked at this and i am shocked and stunned ,with the amount of wrong answers to such a basic question. The ones who have got it right have used far too complicated equations for what is really a basic question , No wonder bolo`s boy is laughing

Sponsored Links

Just looked at this and i am shocked and stunned ,with the amount of wrong answers to such a basic question. The ones who have got it right have used far too complicated equations for what is really a basic question , No wonder bolo`s boy is laughing

If it is so simple then put up or shut up. Show the easy method of solving the question.

Errrmm, to late, see above.

Not impressed so far.On the first meet, they have travelled....... 1 river width.

On docking they have travelled ................2 river widths.

On the 2nd meet they have travelled.........3 river widths.

If they were to carry on and dock again ....4 river widths.

Could you explain why the slow boat hasn't covered 2250m by the second meeting point?As the slow boat covered 650M of the first river width, it will have travelled

3 x 650M = 1950M... at the 3 river widths meeting point

Could you explain why the slower boat hasn't travelled 650m further than the river width by the second meeting point?but it has now travelled a further 350M than the river width.

Yes. And don't forget that 1000m + 600m = river width of 1600m.Thus 1950M - 350M = river width of 1600M.

In fact, once you know the answer, you can write any gibberish you like and pretend that it's a simple solution to the problem.

1599m + 1m = 1600m.

4 x 400m = 1600m.

560,000m / 350 = 1600m.

etc.

a= 1 distance travelled = 650

b= 1 distance travelled = 350

w=3a-b =1600

On the first meet, they have travelled....... 1 river width.

On docking they have travelled ................2 river widths.

On the 2nd meet they have travelled.........3 river widths.

If they were to carry on and dock again ....4 river widths.

Are you ever.......Not impressed so far.

But four perfectly true statements.

When they are at the second meet, they still have one river width to complete, thus they must have travelled 3 river widths at that point.

As the slow boat covered 650M of the first river width, it will have travelled

3 x 650M = 1950M... at the 3 river widths meeting point

As the original question does not state which boat covers the first 650M, then you need to work out the solution twice.Could you explain why the slow boat hasn't covered 2250m by the second meeting point?

In the solution where you assume the faster boat covers 650M, the maths does not work out.

2 workings out are required for whatever solving method you use.

but it has now travelled a further 350M than the river width.

See above, their is only one solution for the two choices you have.Could you explain why the slower boat hasn't travelled 650m further than the river width by the second meeting point?

Thus 1950M - 350M = river width of 1600M.

In fact, once you know the answer, you can write any gibberish you like and pretend that it's a simple solution to the problem.

In fact, when you can't follow the reasoning, you can write any gibberish you like, and pretend you know what you are talking about.

Yes. More often than not I'm very impressed by blondini's posts, and yesterday I was extremely impressed by what jonjbm wrote.Are you ever.......Not impressed so far.

Since you seem to be collecting statements of the bleeding obvious, here's one to add:But four perfectly true statements.

Black is not white.

When they are at the second meet, they still have one river width to complete, thus they must have travelled 3 river widths at that point.

I suspected as much.As the original question does not state which boat covers the first 650M, then you need to work out the solution twice.Could you explain why the slow boat hasn't covered 2250m by the second meeting point?As the slow boat covered 650M of the first river width, it will have travelled

3 x 650M = 1950M... at the 3 river widths meeting point

You don't "need" to work it out twice. Your second working is nothing more than the arithmetic equivalent of dancing around handbags at a disco, and it achieves nothing except to subtract elegance from mikeyd's original solution.

Now I see where you're getting confused. Certainly there are two alternative sets of equations, but one can immediately be eliminated, without any "need to work out the solution twice" (sic.).In the solution where you assume the faster boat covers 650M, the maths does not work out.

2 workings out are required for whatever solving method you use.

That's an accurate description of what you've been doing.In fact, when you can't follow the reasoning, you can write any gibberish you like, and pretend you know what you are talking about.

Sponsored Links