Through Math for America, I am part of an on-going collaboration with the New York Times Learning Network. My latest contribution, a Test Yourself quiz-question, can be found here:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/test-yourself-math-jan-10-2010/
This question is based on a recently-filed lawsuit that aims to recover some of the money lost to Bernie Madoff and associates through his expansive and devastating Ponzi scheme.
Through Math for America, I am part of an on-going collaboration with the New York Times Learning Network. My latest contribution, a Test Yourself quiz-question, can be found here:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/test-yourself-math-dec-22-2010/
This question is based on the recent GM re-IPO. Apparently, excessive media coverage can raise the value of a stock!
After using some photographs and some rough estimations to approximate the speed of a runner, I got to wondering “How important is the accuracy of the various estimations?”
In the first solution, I estimated that the height of the runner was 5.75 feet. I then compared that to the runner’s height in pixel measure, created a pixel-to-feet conversion rate, and used this to calculate the distance the runner travelled during the 1.1 seconds between the two photographs. Once that distance was determined, the runner’s pace could be estimated at around 9.86 minutes per mile.
But what if I estimate of the runner’s height was off? And how off would it have to be to make a difference? Let’s say that the runner’ s height is actually 6 feet, and so my original estimate was off by .25 feet. How will this affect the final result?
The runner’s rate was originally calculated to be 590 pixels-per-second, and this is not affected by the estimate of the runner’s height. But if the runner’s real height was 6 feet, then the pixel-to-feet conversion rate is really 380-to-6, which means the runner’s rate translates to about 9.32 feet per second (intead of 8.93 feet per second, as originally calculated).
Following through with the calculations under this new height approximation, the runner runs one mile in 9.45 minutes. Therefore, if my height estimate was off by .25 feet, then my minutes-per-mile estimate is off by about .41 minutes. In both cases, this represents a difference of about 4%.
It makes sense that the percentage change is the same, as all the mathematical operations being done here are linear. The change in the input of 4% just keeps getting passed through every process without alteration, and eventually comes out as a 4% change in the output.
Related Posts
Recently I posted two photos of a runner taken 1.1 seconds apart and asked readers to speculate as to how fast he was running. Here is a second proposed solution.
As I did in my first solution, I pasted the two photos together and took measurements of various lengths in pixels.
But this time, instead of estimating the runner’s height, I returned to the park and took a measurement of the distance between the white lines. This distance is about 18 feet 9 inches in the park, and about 1250 pixels in the photo.
Thus, the 650 pixel distance between the runner’s two positions translates into about 9.75 feet. If the runner is running 9.75 feet in 1.1 seconds, this scales to a speed of about 6.04 miles per hour.
The approximation of this runner’s mile is therefore around 9.93 minutes. Pretty close to my first estimate.
Related Posts
Through Math for America, I am part of an on-going collaboration with the New York Times Learning Network. My latest contribution, a Test Yourself quiz-question, can be found here:
http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/test-yourself-math-dec-15-2010/
This question is based on a Wikileak-ed cable regarding trade negotiations between China and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully posting this won’t get me on somebody’s watch-list, but to be safe I’m going to double-check my tax returns this year.