mersenneforum.org Rocky table
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2007-03-21, 20:31   #12
hhh

Jun 2005

5658 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman Highly discontinuous? Indeed!! It is nowhere continuous.
That I know. What I still don't know if of which of the two propositions I gave or what else you were talking. H.

 2007-03-21, 21:18 #13 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2×3×13×83 Posts That the floor is continuous (no steps) is one of my assumptions.
2007-03-23, 11:58   #14
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

11101001001002 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy That the floor is continuous (no steps) is one of my assumptions.
No, it wasn't. Go re-read what you wrote.

2007-03-23, 13:27   #15
Wacky

Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country

44116 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman No, it wasn't. Go re-read what you wrote.
Bob,

I think that he means that "the floor is continuous" is one of the "two simple assumptions" that he used in his answer.

"However, with two simple assumptions, you can rectify the
problem by rotating the table through an angle <90 degrees.
How come? and what are the assumptions?"

Last fiddled with by Wacky on 2007-03-23 at 13:28

 2007-03-23, 13:32 #16 Wacky     Jun 2003 The Texas Hill Country 108910 Posts I suspect that "The feet of the table are coplanar" is sufficient, but not necessary, to serve as the other assumption.
 2007-03-23, 14:41 #17 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 2·3·13·83 Posts This was my other assumption (feet at corners of a square). It is most definitely necessary though. David
2007-03-23, 15:21   #18
R.D. Silverman

Nov 2003

22×5×373 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Wacky I suspect that "The feet of the table are coplanar" is sufficient, but not necessary, to serve as the other assumption.
Actually, this assumption is not needed under my solution.

I can also replace "height is a u.r.v." with "height is a continuous function",
but the function will be nowhere differentiable. The height will be a
lacunary function. All that is required is that within a circle of radius epsilon
of each point, the height of the floor varies sufficiently. "sufficiently"
depends on how far the 4 feet of the table depart from a plane. If the
feet are coplanar, then I believe that the height varying by k * epsilon
for any k > 1 in the neighborhood of the point on which the 4th leg will
sit is sufficient to let one apply the Ham Sandwich Theorem.

However, while continuous, the floor will not be *smooth*

2007-03-23, 16:06   #19
davieddy

"Lucan"
Dec 2006
England

194A16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy This was my other assumption (feet at corners of a square). It is most definitely necessary though. David
Unless you place a minimum limit on the "unlevelness" of the floor.
Wacky, did you get necessary and sufficient the wrong way round?

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2007-03-23 at 16:07

2007-03-23, 16:27   #20
Wacky

Jun 2003
The Texas Hill Country

44116 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by davieddy Unless you place a minimum limit on the "unlevelness" of the floor. Wacky, did you get necessary and sufficient the wrong way round?
No, I don't think so. I believe that the requirement is that the floor be more uneven than the feet of the table.

If my assertion is correct, then coplanar feet is sufficient. However, if would not be necessary.

 2007-03-23, 16:43 #21 mfgoode Bronze Medalist     Jan 2004 Mumbai,India 22·33·19 Posts Uneven floor ! All that 'higher maths' when all one has to do is place a wedge under the leg that's off the floor. Plain common sense! Mally
 2007-03-23, 17:16 #22 davieddy     "Lucan" Dec 2006 England 145128 Posts To be fair, I think it is only RDS who has introduced the higher maths. I suppose your solution (if they provided a sufficiency of paper napkins) would be at least as practical as rotating the table a bit. I was in a restaurant whe I first had this insight. David

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post garo Cunningham Tables 85 2020-04-15 21:12 garo Cunningham Tables 82 2020-03-15 21:47 garo Cunningham Tables 99 2020-01-10 06:29 garo Cunningham Tables 79 2020-01-01 15:26 garo Cunningham Tables 41 2016-08-04 04:24

All times are UTC. The time now is 07:19.

Wed Dec 2 07:19:19 UTC 2020 up 83 days, 4:30, 1 user, load averages: 1.02, 1.32, 1.42