woodchucks

MIchael_MichalskiMIchael_Michalski Posts: 137
edited 2019-01-07 - 22:01:06 in General Discussion
Suppose woodchucks have the ability to load lumber (probably into the back of a truck or a bin of some sort) by throwing or tossing it. Furthermore, due to fatigue, assume that a woodchucks ability to transfer lumber has a rate inversely proportional to the total mass of lumber he or she has already transferred. Find an expression for the total mass of lumber a woodchuck can transfer per hour. Make a public policy recommendation on whether or not woodchucks will be a threat to forests if allowed to do this for arbitrarily large periods of time.

Comments

  • In other words, how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

    If this is a homework problem, it's brilliant.
  • I was bored at work
  • I was bored at work

    Huh. I always thought that work is equal to the word "bored" when it is not interesting. Besides they are all union woodchucks who belong to one which was formed in response to the problems with woodchucks and government in New York and PA.
  • No fair, you need calculus to solve that problem.
  • I like the much longer:

    How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He would chuck what wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

    I've taught myself to saw this whole thing really fast.

    Bean
  • localroger wrote: »
    No fair, you need calculus to solve that problem.

    Yup.
  • Question: "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

    Answer: "A Woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood."

    I learned this over 50 years ago as a young child.
  • localroger wrote: »
    No fair, you need calculus to solve that problem.

    Yup.

    Then definitely beyond the ken of almost every politician I have heard spouting off for the last year or more.
  • rofl!
  • I make it sqrt(2*alpha*t), where alpha is the constant of proportionality.
    the derivative is sqrt (alpha / (2 * t))
  • Now the next half, Is it ok to let the woodchucks chuck wood for as long as a woodchuck can chuck wood?
  • Now the next half, Is it ok to let the woodchucks chuck wood for as long as a woodchuck can chuck wood?

    That would all depend on the contract with the woodchuck's wood chuck union.
  • The woodchucks lumber transfer function is not dependent upon union activity or membership. It is only dependent upon t. (it was in fact correctly derived above as Λ(t)=sqrt(2αt)) This makes sense, as a woodchuck prevented from transferring lumber due to his or her union is not considered to be a woodchuck that is able to chuck wood whereas the lumber transfer function was derived under the assumption of woodchucks that could chuck wood. The lumber transfer function for woodchucks that cant chuck wood is trivial,being simply Λ(t)=0.
  • Bean wrote: »
    I like the much longer:

    How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. He would chuck what wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

    I've taught myself to saw this whole thing really fast.

    Bean
    Saw wood? Or say “woodchucks”?
  • I sent my mother a link to this discussion. She responded to say that we are all nerds with too much time on our hands!🤣
Sign In or Register to comment.