Formula for percentage

y 24 = 3600 Divide 3600 by 24 to get y

The formula for percentage is the following and it should be easy to use:

3600/24 = 150, y = 1500 Therefore, 24 % of 150 is 36 Now, we will take examples to illustrate how to use the formula for percentage on the right Examples #4: To use the other formula that says part and whole, just remember the following: The number after of is always the whole The number after is is always the part If I say 25 % of___ is 60, we know that the whole is missing and part = 60

We will take examples to illustrate.Let us start with the formula on the left An important thing to remember: Cross multiply It means to multiply the numerator of one fraction by the denominator of the other fraction Examples #1: 25 % of 200 is____ In this problem, of = 200, is = ?, and % = 25 We get: is/200 = 25/100 Since is in an unknown, you can replace it by y to make the problem more familiar y/200 = 25/100 Cross multiply to get y 100 = 200 25 y 100 = 5000 Divide 5000 by 100 to get y Since 5000/100 = 50, y = 50 So, 25 % of 200 is 50 Examples #2: What number is 2% of 50 ? This is just another way of saying 2% of 50 is___ So, set up the proportion as example #1: is/50 = 2/100 Replace is by y and cross multiply to get: y 100 = 50 2 y 100 = 100 Since 1 100 = 100, y = 1 Therefore, 1 is 2 % of 50 Examples #3: 24% of___ is 36 This time, notice that is = 36, but of is missing After you set up the formula, you get: 36/of = 24/100 Replace of by y and cross multiply to get: 36/y = 24/100 y 24 = 36 100

Your proportion will will like this: 60/whole = 25/100 After cross multiplying, we get: whole 25 = 60 100 whole 25 = 6000 Divide 6000 by 25 to get whole 6000/25 = 240, so whole = 240 Therefore, 25 % of 240 is 60 Examples #5: ___% of 45 is 9 Here whole = 45 and part = 9, but % is missing We get: 9/45 = %/100 Replacing % by x and cross multiplying gives: 9 100 = 45 x 900 = 45 x Divide 900 by 45 to get x 900/45 = 20, so x = 20

onvert Percents to Fractions To convert a Percent to a Fraction follow these steps: Step 1: Write down the percent divided by 100.

the percent is not a whole number, then multiply both top and bottom by 10 for ev after the decimal point. (For example, if there is one number after the decimal, then use 10, two then use 100, etc.) Simplify (or reduce) the fraction

Example: Express 11% as a fraction Step 1: Write down: 11 100 Step 2: The percent is a whole number, so no need for step 2. Step 3: The fraction cannot be simplified further.

Answer =

11

/100

150 100 Step 2: The percent is a whole number, so no need for step 2.

Example: Express 75% as a fraction Step 1: Write down: 75 100 Step 2: The percent is a whole number, so no need for step 2. Step 3: Simplify the fraction (this took me two steps, you may be able to do it one!): 5 5

Step 3: Simplify the fraction (I did it one step): 50

150 100

3 2

50 3 4 Answer = 3/2 (which also equals 1, see Mixed Fractions) Conversions

75 100

15 20

Answer = 3/4 From Percent to Decimal To convert from percent to decimal: divide by 100, and remove the "%" sign. The easiest way to divide by 100 is to move the decimal point 2 places to the left. So: From Percent 62.5 100 Step 2: Multiply both top and bottom by 10 (because there is 1 digit after the decimal place) 10 To Decimal move the decimal point 2 places to the left, and remove the "%" sign.

Note: 75/100 is called a decimal fraction and 3/4 is called a common fraction ! Example: Express 62.5% as a fraction Step 1: Write down:

62.5 100

625 1,000 From Decimal to Percent To convert from decimal to percent: multiply by 100, and add a "%" sign. The easiest way to multiply by 100 is to move the decimal point 2 places to the right. So: From Decimal To Percent move the decimal point 2 places to the right, and add the "%" sign.

10

(See how this neatly makes the top a whole number?) Step 3: Simplify the fraction (this took me two steps, you may be able to do it one!) : 25 5

625 1,000

25 40

5 8

25

Answer = 5/8

From Fraction to Decimal The easiest way to convert a fraction to a decimal is to divide the top number by the bottom number (divide the numerator by the denominator in mathematical language)

Example: Express 150% as a fraction Step 1: Write down:

Example: Convert 2/5 to a decimal Divide 2 by 5: 2 5 = 0.4 Answer: 2/5 = 0.4

n = 1 4 9 16 25 n+1 = 2 5 10 17 26 This is the required sequence, so the nth term is n + 1. There is no easy way of working out the nth term of a sequence, other than to try different possibilities. Tips: if the sequence is going up in threes (e.g. 3, 6, 9, 12...), there will probably be a three in the formula, etc. In many cases, square numbers will come up, so try squaring n, as above. Also, the triangular numbers formula often comes up. This is n(n + 1)/2 . Example Find the nth term of the sequence: 2, 6, 12, 20, 30... n=12345
1 100

From Decimal to Fraction To convert a decimal to a fraction needs a little more work. Example: To convert 0.75 to a fraction Steps First, write down the decimal "over" the number 1 Then multiply top and bottom by 10 for every number after the decimal point (10 for 1 number, 100 for 2 numbers, etc) (This makes it a correctly formed fraction) Then Simplify the fraction Example
0.75

0.75 100

/ /
4

75 3

100

n(n + 1)/2 = 1 3 6 10 15 Clearly the required sequence is double the one we have found the nth term for, therefore the nth term of the required sequence is 2n(n+1)/2 = n(n + 1). The Fibonacci sequence The Fibonacci sequence is an important sequence which is as follows: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, ... . The next term of this wellknown sequence is found by adding together the two previous terms. Techniques for adding the numbers 1 to 100

From Fraction to Percentage The easiest way to convert a fraction to a percentage is to divide the top number by the bottom number. then multiply the result by 100, and add the "%" sign. Example: Convert 3/8 to a percentage First divide 3 by 8: 3 8 = 0.375, Then multiply by 100: 0.375 x 100 = 37.5 Add the "%" sign: 37.5% Answer: 3/8 = 37.5%

Theres a popular story that Gauss, mathematician extraordinaire, had a lazy teacher. The so-called educator wanted to keep the kids busy so he could take a nap; he asked the class to add the numbers 1 to 100. Gauss approached with his answer: 5050. So soon? The teacher suspected a cheat, but no. Manual addition was for suckers, and Gauss found a formula to sidestep the problem:

From Percentage to Fraction To convert a percentage to a fraction, first convert to a decimal (divide by 100), then use the steps for converting decimal to fractions (like above). Example: To convert 80% to a fraction Steps Convert 80% to a decimal (=80/100): Write down the decimal "over" the number 1 Then multiply top and bottom by 10 for every number after the decimal point (10 for 1 number, 100 for 2 numbers, etc) (This makes it a correctly formed fraction) Then Simplify the fraction Example 0.8
0.8

Sum from 1 to n = Sum from 1 to 100 =

0.8 10

Lets share a few explanations of this result and really understand it intuitively. For these examples well add 1 to 10, and then see how it applies for 1 to 100 (or 1 to any number). Technique 1: Pair Numbers Pairing numbers is a common approach to this problem. Instead of writing all the numbers in a single column, lets wrap the numbers around, like this:

1 10

= 8 / 10 4 /5

Number Sequences Quick revise In the sequence 2, 4, 6, 8, 10... there is an obvious pattern. Such sequences can be expressed in terms of the nth term of the sequence. In this case, the nth term = 2n. To find the 1st term, put n = 1 into the formula, to find the 4th term, replace the n's by 4's: 4th term = 2 4 = 8. Example What is the nth term of the sequence 2, 5, 10, 17, 26... ? To find the answer, we experiment by considering some possibilities for the nth term and seeing how far away we are: n=12345

1 2 3 4 5 10 9 8 7 6

An interesting pattern emerges: the sum of each column is 11. As the top row increases, the bottom row decreases, so the sum stays the same. Because 1 is paired with 10 (our n), we can say that each column has (n+1). And how many pairs do we have? Well, we have 2 equal rows, we must have n/2 pairs. Number of pairs * Sum of each pair =

which is the formula above. Wait what about an odd number of items? Ah, Im glad you brought it up. What if we are adding up the numbers 1 to 9? We dont have an even number of items to pair up. Many explanations will just give the explanation above and leave it at that. I wont. Lets add the numbers 1 to 9, but instead of starting from 1, lets count from 0 instead:

xxxx xxxxx

Sure, we could go to 10 or 100 beans, but with 5 you get the idea. How do we count the number of beans in our pyramid? Well, the sum is clearly 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5. But lets look at it a different way. Lets say we mirror our pyramid (Ill use o for the mirrored beans), and then topple it over:

0 1 2 3 4 9 8 7 6 5

x x x x x

o xooooo x oo xxoooo xx o o o => x x x o o o xxx oooo xxxxoo xxxxooooo xxxxxo

By counting from 0, we get an extra item (10 in total) so we can have an even number of rows. However, our formula will look a bit different. Notice that each column has a sum of n (not n+1, like before), since 0 and 9 are grouped. And instead of having exactly n items in 2 rows (for n/2 pairs total), we have n + 1 items in 2 rows (for (n + 1)/2 pairs total). If you plug these numbers in Number of pairs * sum of each pair =

Cool, huh? In case youre wondering whether it really lines up, it does. Take a look at the bottom row of the regular pyramid, with 5x (and 1 o). The next row of the pyramid has 1 less x (4 total) and 1 more o (2 total) to fill the gap. Just like the pairing, one side is increasing, and the other is decreasing. Now for the explanation: How many beans do we have total? Well, thats just the area of the rectangle. We have n rows (we didnt change the number of rows in the pyramid), and our collection is (n + 1) units wide, since 1 o is paired up with all the xs.

which is the same formula as before. It always bugged me that the same formula worked for both odd and even numbers wont you get a fraction? Yep, you get the same formula, but for different reasons. Technique 2: Use Two Rows The above method works, but you handle odd and even numbers differently. Isnt there a better way? Yes. Instead of looping the numbers around, lets write them in two rows: Notice that this time, we dont care about n being odd or even the total area formula works out just fine. If n is odd, well have an even number of items (n+1) in each row. But of course, we dont want the total area (the number of xs and os), we just want the number of xs. Since we doubled the xs to get the os, the xs by themselves are just half of the total area:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Number of xs = And were back to our original formula. Again, the number of xs in the pyramid = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5, or the sum from 1 to n. Technique 4: Average it out We all know that average = sum / number of items which we can rewrite to sum = average * number of items So lets figure out the sum. If we have 100 numbers (1100), then we clearly have 100 items. That was easy. To get the average, notice that the numbers are all equally distributed. For every big number, theres a small number on the other end. Lets look at a small set:

Notice that we have 10 pairs, and each pair adds up to 10+1. The total of all the numbers above is

Total = pairs * size of each pair = But we only want the sum of one row, not both. So we divide the formula above by 2 and get:

Now this is cool (as cool as rows of numbers can be). It works for an odd or even number of items the same! Technique 3: Make a Rectangle I recently stumbled upon another explanation, a fresh approach to the old pairing explanation. Different explanations work better for different people, and I tend to like this one better. Instead of writing out numbers, pretend we have beans. We want to add 1 bean to 2 beans to 3 beans all the way up to 5 beans.

123 The average is 2. 2 is already in the middle, and 1 and 3 cancel out so their average is 2. For an even number of items

x xx xxx

1234

the average is between 2 and 3 its 2.5. Even though we have a fractional average, this is ok since we have an even number of items, when we multiply the average by the count that ugly fraction will disappear. Notice in both cases, 1 is on one side of the average and N is equally far away on the other. So, we can say the average of the entire set is actually just the average of 1 and n: (1 + n)/2. Putting this into our formula

Thats the same as the even formula, except each number is 1 less than its counterpart (we have 1 instead of 2, 3 instead of 4, and so on). We get the next biggest even number (n + 1) and take off the extra (n + 1)/2 -1 items: Sum of 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + + n = [(n + 1)/2 * ((n + 1)/2 + 1)] [(n + 1) / 2] To add 1 + 3 + 5 + 13, get the next biggest even (n + 1 = 14) and do [14/2 * (14/2 + 1)] 7 = 7 * 8 7 = 56 7 = 49 Combinations: evens and offset

And voila! We have a fourth way of thinking about our formula. So why is this useful? Three reasons: 1. Adding up numbers quickly can be useful for estimation. Notice that the formula expands to this:

Lets say you want the evens from 50 + 52 + 54 + 56 + 100. Find all the evens 2 + 4 + 6 + + 100 = 50 * 51 and subtract off the ones you dont want 2 + 4 + 6 + 48 = 24 * 25 So, the sum from 50 + 52 + 100 = (50 * 51) (24 * 25) = 1950 Phew! Hope this helps.

Lets say you want to add the numbers from 1 to 1000: suppose you get 1 additional visitor to your site each day how many total visitors will you have after 1000 days? Since thousand squared = 1 million, we get million / 2 + 1000/2 = 500,500. 2. This concept of adding numbers 1 to N shows up in other places, like figuring out the probability for the birthday paradox. Having a firm grasp of this formula will help your understanding in many areas. 3. Most importantly, this example shows there are many ways to understand a formula. Maybe you like the pairing method, maybe you prefer the rectangle technique, or maybe theres another explanation that works for you. Dont give up when you dont understand try to find another explanation that works. Happy math. By the way, there are more details about the history of this story and the technique Gauss may have used. Variations Instead of 1 to n, how about 5 to n? Start with the regular formula (1 + 2 + 3 + + n = n * (n + 1) / 2) and subtract off the part you dont want (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 4 * (4 + 1) / 2 = 10). Sum for 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + n = [n * (n + 1) / 2] 10 And for any starting number a: Sum from a to n = [n * (n + 1) / 2] [a * (a + 1) / 2] How about even numbers, like 2 + 4 + 6 + 8 + + n? Just double the regular formula. To add evens from 2 to 50, find 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 25 and double it: Sum of 2 + 4 + 6 + + n = 2 * (1 + 2 + 3 + + n/2) = 2 * n/2 * (n/2 + 1) / 2 = n/2 * (n/2 + 1) So, to get the evens from 2 to 50 youd do 25 * (25 + 1) = 650 How about odd numbers, like 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + + n?

Ruby nerds: you can check this using How to Find a Formula for a Set of Numbers

Perhaps you have seen one of those math problems that says, "What's the next number in this series: 2, 6, 12, 20, ...". Or in the real world, scientists and engineers routinely find a set of numbers through experiments and would then like to find a formula that fits these numbers. A few years ago I developed a simple (though admittedly sometimes tedious) technique for finding a formula to fit a set of numbers. Disclaimer: While I developed this technique myself, the mathematics behind it is simple enough that I would not be in the least surprised to learn that someone else invented it before me. If anyone reading this is aware of this or a similar technique being published elsewhere, I'd be interested to here about it. A mathematically astute person might immediately object that what I am saying is impossible, that there is no "one formula" that fits any given set of numbers. This is quite true. What this technique finds is the simplest polynomial that fits the numbers. A polynomial is an equation in the form a0 + a1n + a2n2 + a3n3 + a4n4 + ... To explain my technique, let's work through an example. Suppose you are given the following series of numbers and want to find a formula for them, and then compute the next number in the sequence. 2, 8, 9, 11, 20 The first step is to arrange them in a column. To the left of this column we write an ascending list of counting numbers, like this: 1 2 2 8 3 9 4 11 5 20 We number the column with the original values "0". We then create a column 1, where each value is the difference between each pair of values in column 0. Always take the lower number minus the upper number. That is, we first compare the first two numbers: 2 and 8. 8 - 2 = 6, so we write 6 to the right of and somewhat between 2 and 8. Then we compare the third number, 9, to the second number 8. 9 - 8 = 1. We proceed down the column this way, like so: 0 1

1 2 6 2 8 1 3 9 2 4 11 9 5 20 Now we make a column 2 by taking the differences between the values in column 1, like so: 0 1 2 1 2 6 2 8 1 3 9 2 4 11 9 5 20 7 1 -5

We proceed thus through all the values: Original - n3 1 2 - 13 = 2 - 1 = 1 2 8 - 23 = 8 - 8 = 0 3 9 - 33 = 9 - 27 = -18 4 11 - 43 = 11 - 64 = -53 5 20 - 53 = 20 - 125 = -105

We create a new table from these values, calling these our new column 0. Like so: 0 1 1 2 0 3 -18 4 -53 5 -105 Now we go through the same process as we did for the first table. 0 1 1 1 -1 2 0 -18 3 -18 -35 4 -53 -52 5 -105 -17 -17 -17 2

Note that negative results -- as in 1 - 6 -- are normal and expected. We continue making new columns in this way until all the values in a column are the same. In this case, that just takes one more column. 0 1 2 3 1 2 6 2 8 1 3 9 2 4 11 9 5 20 Recall that subtracting a negative is the same as adding a positive. Thus 1 minus negative 5 = 1 + 5 = 6. What happens, you may ask, if we never reach a point where all the numbers in a column are the same? Simple: sooner or later we will get to the point where there is only one number in the column. As this number must always be the same as itself, then we are done. More on this later. We are now ready to construct the first term of the polynomial. The column number where we stopped is the power of n. In this case we stopped at column 3, so the first term involves n3. We multiply this by the value in the column divided by the factorial of the column number. (A "factorial" is the product of all the integers from 1 to that number. For example, 5 factorial -- which is written "5!" -- is 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 120.) The value in this column is 6 and 3! is 6, so our first term is: 6 / 3! x n3 = 6 / 6 x n3 = n3 Now we evaluate this term for 1, 2, 3, and so on, and subtract each result from the corresponding starting value. We started with value #1 was 2. So we plug 1 into n = 1 = 1, then subtract this from 2, 2 - 1 = 1.
3 3

-5 6 1 6 7

Applying the same rules gives our second term: -17 / 2! x n2 = -17/2 x n2 Note that this table was completed in fewer columns than the first table. That is, the first table ended with column 3, while this table ended with column 2. Every table must end with fewer columns than the previous table. If that doesn't happen, you have made an arithmetic mistake. (Otherwise you could get two n3 terms or whatever, which doesn't make sense.) Again we plug the successive integers into this term and subtract from the starting values. Note we subtract with the values that we started with on this table -- we don't go back to the original values. Note that we are subtracting a negative, which is the same as adding a positive. Original - -17/2 n2 1 1 + 17/2 12 = 1 + 17/2 = 19/2 2 0 + 17/2 22 = 0 + 34 = 34 3 -18 + 17/2 32 = -18 + 153/2 = 117/2 -105 + 17/2 52 = -105 + 425/2 = 215/2

4 -53 + 17/2 42 = -53 + 272/2 = 83 5

We build a new table with these values and go through the whole process again: 0 1 19/2 49/2 2 34 49/2 3 117/2 49/2 4 83 1

Value #2 is 8. So we plug 2 into n3 = 23 = 8. Subtract this from 8, 8 - 8 = 0.

49/2 5 215/2 Giving our next term as: 49/2 / 1! x n1 = 49/2 n Plug integers into this term to get the next table: Original - 49/2 n 1 19/2 - 49/2 x 1 = 19/2 - 49/2 = -15 2 34 - 49/2 x 2 = 34 - 49 = -15 3 117/2 - 49/2 x 3 = 117/2 - 147/2 = -15 215/2 - 49/2 x 5 = 215/2 - 245/2 = -15

As I noted earlier, a table is complete when all the values in a column are the same. If you come to a single value in a column, then it is the same as itself, and the table is complete. Mathematically, this is a perfectly valid solution. But if this happens, it should introduce some doubt into your mind. Do the numbers really follow some pattern, or am I just coming up with a formula to fit a set of random numbers? It is, after all, possible to come up with a formula for any set of numbers. The fact that this technique works should demonstrate that: pick any set of numbers, run them through this method, and you will get a formula to describe them. If you get to a column with two or three numbers the same, this is a good indication that there really is a pattern described by this formula. You would be unlikely to get such a result by chance. Note this also illustrates the fact that any problem asking "what's the next number in this sequence" has an infinite number of possible answers. If someone gives you the sequence, say, "1, 4, 9, 16", you could run them through the above process and get the answer that the person is probably looking for: the rule is n2 so the next value is 25. But you could also invent any number as the next number in the sequence, say 42, and come up with a rule for "1, 4, 9, 16, 42". Feel free to work it out. It comes out to: 17/24 n4 - 85/12 n3 + 619/24 n2 - 425/12 n + 17 and the next term is then 121. So if you want to be obnoxious, the next time you are given a quiz of "find the next number in the series" problems, just pick any number you like and fill it in, and you'll be completely correct. You'll probably get a failing grade on the test, but you can enjoy the smug satisfaction of knowing you were right. Rouding errors In the above discussion I've been assuming that all numbers were exact. For a math problem, this would normally be the case. But if you've gotten a set of numbers from real-world measurements, there is probably some margin of error on your measurements. In this case, you run into an additional problem: If two numbers look close, are they equal within some margin of error? Or are they really different? And if you do consider them equal, what value do you use when you proceed to the next step? I've tinkered with setting a margin of error, for example, differences less than .001 are considered insignificant, and then averaging the numbers together to go to the next step. I haven't found any solution better than trial and error for selecting the margin of error. If the next table does not end in fewer columns than the previous, then the margin of error was not correctly chosen. Perhaps there is something more rigorous one could do here; I haven't pursued it. Why This Works While I haven't constructed a formal mathematical proof that this works, the principle is simple if you know a little calculus. When we take the difference between pairs of values, we are, in effect, finding the derivative. You may note that the value you get is the derivative at some value in between the two values where you took the difference. That is, when you take the difference between the Y values corresponding to X values of, say, 2 and 3, you get the derivative at some X between 2 and 3. Not necessarily 2.5, but between 2 and 3. When you continue taking differences until you get a constant, this is the equivalent of taking derivatives until you get to a constant function. So for example, suppose the equation is y=2 x3 + 3 x - 7. (Of course the whole point is that we don't know that initially, but let's suppose that's what it is.) So as we take successive differences, we get: Column 0 Equation y = 2 x3 + 3 x 7 y' = 6 x2 + 3 y'' = 12 x y''' = 12

4 83 - 49/2 x 4 = 83 - 98 = -15 5

Building another table and following through the process yields the simple result: 0 1 -15 2 -15 3 -15 4 -15 5 -15 This is simple, of course, because column 0 already contains all the same value, so we are quickly done. This gives a final term of: -15 x n0 = -15 (Recall that any number to the zero power is simply one, and can be dropped from the expression.) Once we get a table that is complete in the zero column, we are done. So now we put all these terms together to get the full equation: n3 - 17/2 n2 + 49/2 n - 15 To check, try this on each value: Origina l 1 2 2 8 3 9 4 11 5 20 Formula 13 - 17/2 x 12 + 49/2 x 1 - 15 = 1 - 17/2 + 49/2 - 15 = 2 23 - 17/2 x 22 + 49/2 x 2 - 15 = 8 - 34 + 49 - 15 = 8 33 - 17/2 x 32 + 49/2 x 3 - 15 = 27 - 153/2 + 147/2 15 = 9 43 - 17/2 x 42 + 49/2 x 4 - 15 = 64 - 136 + 98 - 15 = 11 53 - 17/2 x 52 + 49/2 x 5 - 15 = 125 - 425/2 + 245/2 15 = 20

To find the next value in the table is now simply a matter of plugging 6 into the formula: Origina l 6 ?

Formula 63 - 17/2 x 62 + 49/2 x 6 - 15 = 216 - 306 + 147 15 = 42

And we see that the answer is the near-mythical value, 42. Some real-world considerations Coming to a single value in a column

1 2 3

Thinking backwards, then, we see that when we reach a constant, the column number must be the highest power in the original equation. Each time we take a derivative, we multiply by the exponent, so if we take derivatives all the way to a constant, we will have multiplied by all the integers from 1 to the original power, that is, by the power factorial. So when we get to a constant row, we know that the first term in the original equation must have been this constant times x to the column power divided by that power factorial, that is, if k is the constant and p is the column number, the first term must have been (k / p!) xp. In this example, the final column would be column 3 which would contain all 12's. We get (12 / 3!) x3 = (12 / 6) x3 = 2 x3. Which indeed is the first term. If we substract this value from each of the original Y's, then we are effectively dropping the first term from the equation. If we run through the whole process again "Rate" Problems and Principles by Rick Garlikov Rate x Time = Distance Problems One of the students on a math-help forum wrote: > Plane A leaves los Angeles for York @ 500 mph, at the same time > plane b leaves from York for Los Angeles @650mph. Assume the distance from > los Angeles to York is 3000 miles, find how long it will take them to meet. > > (2.6 hours) > > I know the answer, but I don't understand the reasoning or how to get it. This was his second attempt at sending us this problem. The first time, he left out the numbers and just wanted us to help with the concept, which was okay; but, more importantly, he stated the problem mistakenly that first time. What he wrote then was: "Two planes leave at the same time going in opposite directions at different speeds. How long will it take them to meet? They both travel the same distance." We wrote back that having the numbers might be helpful, and that it wasn't clear whether they were flying toward each other from different locations or whether they were initially flying away from each other from the same place and then going around the world to cross paths on the way, or what. But more importantly, he had stated a contradiction - since there was no way the planes could fly the same distance if they flew for the same amount of time at different rates. For example, if I drive 90 mph and you drive 45 mph, then no matter how long we drive, as long as we drive the same amount of time as each other, I will cover twice the distance you do. The faster vehicle will always go further over the same amount of time. So he sent back the problem, as above, in its entirety. Someone then pointed out a way for him to look at the specifics of the problem, but I wanted to address the more general issue of his lack of understanding of rate-time-distance problems, and wrote much of the following. For my purpose here, I am adding to what I wrote, by including a section on other kind of rate-time and rate-quantity problems -- the ones that involve doing work at different rates and ones that involve things like dilution rates or unit prices: When you first sent us your problem, you included in it an assumption (same distances covered by both planes) that showed, I think, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of these sorts of problems, so I want to address that. Someone else addressed some specifics about this problem, but I want to talk about the rt=d (rate multiplied by time = distance) formula itself first, because I think you don't really understand it. I think you possibly just see it as a bunch of symbols that don't really have much meaning for you -- a formula to plug numbers into in order to crank out answers. I assume you drive or at least have taken trips in a car. The rt=d formula is just a way of saying that the distance you travel depends on the speed you go for any length of time. If

you go 30 miles per hour for 1 hour, you will go 30 miles. 2 hours at that speed would take you 60 miles; 3 hours would be 90 miles, etc. If you were to cut the speed in half, you would go only 15 miles the first hour and you would have gone 30 miles after two hours, etc. Do you see this part of it? Notice also that understanding this helps you figure out any one of the components from knowing the other two. E.g., if you have 60 miles to drive and the road conditions are such that you will be driving 30 mph the whole way, then you know it will take you 2 hours to get there. And if your cousin comes to visit you from 100 miles away and he tells you the trip took two and a half hours, you know he AVERAGED 40 miles per hour. Right? Now there are a couple of things you need to see about all of this, and some of that is going to be counter-intuitive. First, the easy part: the calculations above all depend on AVERAGE speed. So in the last example of your cousin's driving 100 miles in two and a half hours, you might act surprised and say "But you have a lead foot; what took you so long?" And he might say, "Well I drove 80 mph while we were actually able to move, but there was some construction where we were at a standstill." So you understand that will mess up his AVERAGE speed for the whole trip (just as making pit stops does), since part of the time he was not moving at all. Now if you think about it (forget the formula for a minute), you can actually tell from what he says how long he was driving and how long he was standing still (assuming, what is false but what they never worry about in these problems -acceleration and deceleration getting from 0 to 80 and back; just assume he was either going 80 or 0 the whole time). For example, to look at a slightly simpler modification of this first, suppose he said he drove 100 mph while he was moving. If it took him two and a half hours to drive 100 miles, but the whole time he was actually moving he drove 100 mph, then you can tell he was stuck at the construction for one and a half hours, since otherwise the trip should have only taken him one hour. Well, similarly, since he says he drove 80 while he was moving, you know that it should have taken him 1 hour and a fourth (i.e., one hour and 15 minutes) to cover the 100 miles since he did 80 miles the first hour and then only had to go another 1/4 of that distance at the same speed. Since the trip took him 2 hours and 30 minutes all together, that means half of it was driving and half of it was waiting. To represent this idea by means of the formula, you have to think about how to get the formula to represent the two different PARTS or COMPONENTS of the trip and that is where these problems start to get a bit tricky. But the idea is to think about it conceptually, in words or ideas, first, not to try to go right to the formula first and automatically plug in numbers. That is, you have to think about it conceptually WHEN it is a problem you don't already know how to do mechanically. Once you figure out how to do a particular type of problem, and figure out the mechanics, then you can do all other exactly similar problems mechanically. The rest of this message is about thinking your way through problems you don't immediately know how to do mechanically. Most problems on your test you will hopefully do (mostly) mechanically. In the example of your cousin, we know the whole distance is 100 miles. And we know the whole time is 2.5 hours. BUT his rates were different AND they were different at different times. However, can you see that no matter how many different rates he drove for various different time periods, his TOTAL distance depended simply on the SUM of each of the different distances he drove during each time period? E.g., if you drive a half hour at 60 mph, you will cover 30 miles. Then if you speed up to 80 mph for another half hour, you will cover 40 miles, and then if you slow down to 30 mph, you will only cover 15 miles in the next half hour. But if you drove like this, you would have covered a total of 85 miles (30 + 40 + 15). It is fairly easy to see this looking at it this way, but it is more difficult to see it if we scramble it up and leave out one of the amounts and you have to figure it out going "backwards". That is what word problems do. Further, what makes them difficult is that the components they give you, or ask you to find can involve variable distances, variable times, variable speeds, or any two or three of these. How you "reassemble" all this in order to use the d=rt formula takes some reflection (and sometimes some trial

and error as you reflect) that is "outside" of the formula itself. You have to think about how to use the formula. So the trick is to be able to understand EXACTLY what they are giving you and EXACTLY what it is that is missing, but you do that from thinking, not from the formula, because the formula only works for the COMPONENTS of any trip where you are going an average speed for a certain amount of time. ONCE the conditions deal with different speeds or different times, you have to look at each of those components and how they go together. And that can be very difficult if you are not methodical in how you think about the components and how they go together. The formula doesn't tell you which components you need to look at and how they go together. For that, you need to think, and the thinking is not always as easy or straight forward as it seems like it ought to be. In the case of your cousin above, if we call the time he spent driving 80 mph, T1; then the time he spent standing still is (2.5 - T1) hours, since the whole trip took 2.5 hours. So we have 100 miles = (80 mph x T1) + (0 mph x [2.5 - T1]) which is equivalent then to: 100 miles = 80 mph x T1 So T1 will equal 1 and a quarter hours. And, since the time he spent going zero is (2.5 - 1.25), it also turns out to be 1.25 hours. Now sometimes the right answers will seem counter-intuitive, so it is really important to think about your components methodically and systematically. There is a famous trick problem: To qualify for a race, you need to average 60 mph driving two laps around a 1 mile long track. You have some sort of engine difficulty the first lap so that you only average 30 mph during that lap; how fast do you have to drive the second lap to average 60 for both of them? I am going to go through THIS problem with you because, since it is SO difficult, it will illustrate a way of looking at almost all the kinds of things you have to think about when working any of these kinds of problems FOR THE FIRST TIME (i.e.,before you can do them mechanically because you recognize the TYPE of problem it is). Intuitively it would seem you need to drive 90, but this turns out to be wrong for reasons I will give in a minute. The answer is that NO MATTER HOW FAST you do the second lap, you can't make it. And this SEEMS really odd and that it can't possibly be right, but it is. The reason is that in order to average at least 60 mph over two one-mile laps, since 60 mph is one mile per minute, you will need to do the whole two miles in two minutes or less. But if you drove the first mile at only 30, you used up the whole two minutes just doing IT. So you have run out of time to qualify. To see this with the rt=d formula, you need to look at the overall trip and break it into components, and that is the hardest part of doing this (these) problem(s), because (often) the components are difficult to figure out, and because it is hard to see which ones you need to put together in which way. The race car one is a perfect example, because you can't just add the average speed of the two laps together and divide them by two, BECAUSE the time you need for each lap will be different. You made a similar error in your first statement of the airplane problem-- you assumed the distances were the same for two planes flying the same time (even though they were going different rates). You have to be really be careful about what you assume, and that is often difficult, and takes a lot of thinking. In the race car problem, the trick is in seeing that the average rate for the whole qualifying run will be equal to the (sum of the distances of each different part of the qualifying run) divided by (the total time it took to go all those distances) --which, I know, looks like a mouthful when you first read it, but we will look at the problem piecemeal: You set it up giving all the parts you know in terms of COMPONENTS: You know all about the first lap, but only the distance of the second lap; but you also know what the total distance and the average speed for the total distance have to be. Now you have to mess around trying to put all that together somehow, and sometimes that might take some trial-and-error. Lets call the distance of the first lap D1, the rate R1, and the time T1; the second lap we will call all those things D2, R2, and T2; and for the whole run, we will call the time T, the rate R, and

the distance D. We know what some of these things have to be: D1 and D2 are each one mile, so we know D = 2 miles We know R must equal 60 mph (or more, but we will skip the "more" part). We know R1 = 30 We need to find R2 So I tried the following first, and it got me nowhere, and I include it here because I want you to see that it is possible, and easy, to do this stuff mechanically, and even thoughtfully, and get nowhere even though it looks like a promising way to go. This stuff is not as easy as the books and some teachers make it look; so you don't need to think you are stupid or ignorant just because you take a wrong path on one of these, or any algebra problem. All of us can work types of problems we recognize how to do without thinking, but that is quite different from being able to do types of problems we meet for the first time or have forgotten how to do automatically: We know that the total average rate will be the total distance divided by the total time: R will be D/T, by solving the D=RT equation for R (or by just realizing that rate simply is distance divided by the time; e.g., 80 miles per hour, 186,000 feet per second, 800 kilometers/day, 2,000,999 miles per lunar month, or whatever). and since D = (D1 + D2), if we can figure out D1 and D2 in terms of their own rates and times, we might have something going here. [The stuff (in blue and in green) down to the next blank line will be a futile, though reasonable, attempt.] Well, D1 = R1 x T1 (since the distance for the first lap will be the speed of that lap times the time), and D2 = R2 x T2, so just simply plugging all this stuff in, we will get D = (R1 x T1) + (R2 x T2) That means 2 miles = (30 mph x T1) + (R2 x T2) But now we are stuck again, unless we can figure out how to represent some of this in terms of things we know. Well, since R2 is what we are looking for, let's mess with T1 and T2. T1 will equal D1/R1, and since we know D1=1 mile and R1=30 mph, we know that T1 must be 1/30 of an hour. So we can plug that back in, and get: 2 = (30 x 1/30) + (R2 x T2) And that means 2 = 1 + (R2 x T2) But now I am stuck because first I don't know what either R2 or T2 is, and second, we already know R2 x T2 = D2, which is 1 mile, so we end up with the trivial statement 2 = 1 + 1. This is not good. So now I go back to thinking again, instead of just plugging in. Let's see if we can't just set up something algebraically closer to what the problem states. The average rate has to equal 60, and we have part of the components, so: R = D/T which is what I had before, before I went off track. Hence, 60 mph = 2 miles/T which means, if you solve for T, that T = 2/60 or 1/30 of an hour. But we also know that T = T1 + T2 since the total time will equal the sum of the times for each lap. So 1/30 = T1 + T2 Now, T1 = D1/R1, which is 1 mile/30 mph, which is 1/30 of an hour (two minutes), so that means: 1/30= 1/30 + T2 That means T2 must be zero seconds. Which means he has to do the second lap in NO time at all. And that is impossible. So let's go back and look at your airplane problem now, which should be easier than this: We'll call them plane 1 and plane 2, and their distances, times, and rates also 1 and 2 respectively. So we know R1 = 500 mph and R2 = 650 mph We know D (the total distance they cover together) is 3000 miles And we can know that T1=T2, since they will fly for the same amount of time. Further those times each are equal to the total time, so we can call all the times simply T, and T is also what the problem asks us to solve. So the question is how we can express all these components in some way that will get us a solution.

Well, we know that the total distance = the sum of the distances both planes travel: D = D1 + D2 and we know that the distance each plane travels is its rate times its time. We know the total distance and we know the rates of each plane, so we can say that 3000 = D1 + D2 = (R1T1 + R2T2) = (R1T + R2T) since the times are all the same. Which means after you plug in all the numbers you know that 3000 = (500T + 650T) = 1150T, so T will = 3000/1150, which is 2.60869.... (-- which is a number psychologically likely to make you feel you must have made a mistake since it doesn't come out a whole or simple number). Let me give three quick examples to show that none of this stuff is necessarily easy to figure out, even in cases when it actually is easy to do. There is a problem that is really difficult for people who know calculus and lots of high level math, but is easy for people who don't know calculus or higher level math: 1) Two trains start toward each other at the same time just like your two planes do. One is going 90 and the other 60. The distance is the same as above, 3000 miles. A really fast and tireless bee starts when they do, at the front of one of them, and flies 300 mph toward the other. When it gets to the second train, it immediately turns and flies back toward the first, and when it gets to it, it turns and flies back again, always flying back and forth between the two trains as they speed toward each other. How far will the bee travel altogether before it is squished between the two trains, which are, unfortunately, on the same track? Notice the bee makes a shorter trip each time, because the trains are getting closer and closer all the time. In calculus, this is really hard, because you have to "sum an infinite series", but that is the most obvious way to see this problem if you know calculus. If you don't, it is a simple problem, not unlike your plane problem -with an added feature: Notice the two trains are covering 150 mph between them. There are3000 miles to cover altogether, so it will take them 20 hours. The bee is flying 300 mph then for twenty hours, so the bee flies 6000 miles. Ta da! When I was taking algebra, I was given the following problem: 2) a train leaves NY for LA, going 65 mph; and 8 hours and 25 minutes later a train leaves LA for NY going 88 mph. When they pass, which one will be closer to NY? I worked on it forever and finally just to try to see how to do it, I changed the numbers to make them easier to work with. I used my new problem to figure out how far from NY each train would be, and then I found out that they would be the SAME distance from NY, and I thought"what a coincidence!" UNTIL I then re-read the problem in light of that answer. OF COURSE, they would be the same distance from NY -- they are passing each other AT THE SAME PLACE, which NO MATTER WHERE THAT IS, will be the same distance from NY, even if they are in Nevada. The problem did not ask for which train travels the farthest nor for whether they will meet closer to NY or to LA or any of the standard things. It was a trick problem that didn't need ANY algebra. Algebra only made it hard, if you were going to plug into formulas without carefully paying attention to what was being asked. Finally, Richard Feynman, the physicist that one author has referred to as "no ordinary genius" in a book by that title, one time got one right in just a few seconds during a high school math competition. Everyone else was still picking up their pencils to start figuring: 3) A river is flowing downstream at 15 mph relative to the shore. A rowing team is practicing rowing and at first they row upstream (against the current). They can only go 1.5 mph relative to the shore at this rate. The guy at the back end of the boat is wearing a hat when they begin, but after a while his hat falls into the water (and floats) and it is 15 minutes before they notice it. They then instantaneously reverse direction and row back to catch up with the hat, rowing with the same strength or power they were rowing with before. How long will it take them to catch up with the hat as it is pushed downstream by the current? The answer is 15 minutes, because all those various rates cancel each other out and are irrelevant -- just as if the water was still water. But the easiest way to see this is that suppose

you travel west in your car for an hour and twenty minutes, and realize you left something at home that you need. How long will it take you to get home, traveling at the same power? One hour and twenty minutes, of course, (assuming no lights or traffic, etc., of course). Yet the earth has been turning eastward at 1000 miles per hour (that is how fast the earth turns at the middle, since it is 24,000 miles around it takes 24 hours to make one complete rotation), and you were going against that as you drove west, and now you are going with that as you drive back east. Yet we never need to take that into account. Nor do we need to take into account the distance or rate the earth has been traveling in its orbit around the sun. Don't feel bad when you can't do any of these KINDS of problems immediately and automatically the first time you see one. Just think about them and think about the formula d=rt and try to figure out the essential components that will give you a solution. That is not easy the first time you see a given type of problem. But once you see how a given type works, you can do other problems of that type fairly quickly and mechanically. One thing to BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT: keep your "units" straight, and preferably with their numbers in your work as you go. Sometimes you will have a problem where one rate is given in miles per hour and another rate is feet per second, or they will give you a rate in miles per hour and ask you about something in minutes. Or they will ask about distances in miles after giving rates in feet per second. Almost anything can vary "unit"-wise, so be careful, and keep your units with your numbers. Otherwise you could end up adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing "unlike" things you don't realize are inappropriate to put together. E.g., you can't subtract 25 feet/second from 50 miles/hour and get "25" feet/second or miles/hour. (In physics, and elsewhere, you can multiply or divide various unlike units of certain sorts, to get foot-seconds or gram-centimeters or whatever, but again you have to keep all that straight or you will mix some inappropriately, and get wrong numbers with wrong units.) Keeping your units with their numbers also helps you keep your multiplication and division straight if you realize you can multiply and divide (and "cancel out") units the same way you can numbers. I.e., if you multiply miles/hour times hours, the "hours" cancel out and you get "miles", which you should. If you divide miles by seconds, you get miles/second. But sometimes lining up your units is not so obvious, and it is difficult to know whether you need to multiply or divide quantities. So if you have some numbers with rates and some numbers with distances, and aren't sure which way you need to divide in order to get times, just line up your quantities with their units so that you divide the distances by the rates in order to end up with times. I.e., if you have 30 miles/hour and 400 miles, you divided the number of miles by the number of miles/hour, which in order to get "hours" -- 400 miles/30 (miles/hour) = 13 and a third hours. (Remember dividing by a fraction is the same as multiplying by its reciprocal, so when you divide "miles" by "miles/hour", it is the same as multiplying "miles" x "hours/mile", and the "miles" "cancel out" leaving just "hours". So if you ever end up with something like 40/hour and there is no unit in the numerator, you have likely done something wrong, since there should be 40 something/hour. In the above example, however, notice that when you divided 400 miles by 30 miles/hour, it is only the units that "reciprocate"; not the numbers; the 400 is divided by the 30, and the miles are divided by the miles/hour, to yield hours -- 13 and a third hours in this case.)

Rate x Time = Quantity of Work Problems These are the sorts of problems that go something like: 1 man does a job in 3 hours, another does it in 4 hours and a third does it 6 hours; how long will it take them to do the job working together? Or, 1 pipe lets in water that will fill a pool in two days, another will fill it by itself in a day and a half, and a third pipe will empty the pool in two days. If all three pipes are open, how long will it take to fill the pool? These are just like the rate x time = distance problems except that instead of distances, you are getting a quantity of work, and you have to be sure to keep your units straight in these. So, looking at the first problem, there are some things to notice: 1) if they all work together the time they work will all be the same, since they are working from the start of the

job until it is finished. 2) What they will be achieving is, not distance, but work, and that work is usually, but not necessarily, in the form of "1 complete job". So if we use the first case as an example, what you have is A works at the rate of 1 job/3 hours, B works at the rate of 1 job/4 hours, and C does 1 job/6 hours. These are our components, and we "just" have to assemble them in a rate x time = job form as we did the distance problems. So, again, here is where the "thinking" part comes in. First, we know that their rates will combine somehow so that the quantities of their individual labor will produce the whole product, and second we know that they will each work the same amount of time, call it t. So if we call the whole job or product Q, and each man's contribution to it Q1, Q2, and Q3, we know that: Q = Q1 + Q2 + Q3. Further, we know that each man's contribution will be the product of his rate of work times the amount of time he works, so Q1 = tR1, Q2 = t R2, and Q3 = tR3 so Q = tR1 + tR2 + tR3 Now we know the rates: 1 job/3 hours, 1 job/4 hours, and 1 job/6 hours. So Q = t(1 job/3 hours) + t(1 job/4 hours) + t(1 job/6 hours) = t(1/3 + 1/4 + 1/6 job/hour) That appears to leave us with two variables, Q and t, but actually we know Q, because Q is 1 COMPLETE JOB. Remember the question was "how long, (t), does it take for all the people working together to do the (i.e., one whole) job". So then we have: 1 job = t(1 job/3 hours) + t(1 job/4 hours) + t(1 job/6 hours) = t(1/3 + 1/4 + 1/6 job/hour) 1 job = t(4/12 + 3/12 + 2/12 job/hour) 1 job = t(9/12 job/hour) 1 job/(9/12 job/hour) = t t = 4/3 hour, or 1 hour and 20 minutes To check the answer, you just add up how much work each person would do in that time, and see whether it comes out to one complete job. So: Person 1 does 4/3 hours x 1/3 job/hour = 4/9 job = 16/36 job Person 2 does 4/3 hours x 1/4 job/hour = 4/12 job = 12/36 job Person 3 does 4/3 hours x 1/6 job/hour = 4/18 job = 8/36 job which adds up to 36/36 of the job, or 1 complete job.

other side. They each go a constant speed throughout the entire problem (so ignore having to slow down to turn around, and ignore current, etc.), but they are not necessarily the same speed as each other. When each boat reaches its opposite bank, it immediately turns around and heads back to where it started. The boats thus pass each other twice. The first time they pass, they are 700 yards from one of the banks of the river. The second time they pass, they have each turned around after reaching their respective opposite shores and have started back toward where they each began. When they pass the second time, they are 300 yards from the other bank of the river. How wide is the river? The answer is below, if and when you are ready to look at it.

A Solution To the Two Boats On the River Problem I was getting nowhere trying to solve it by setting up equations because I could get all kinds of equations, but nothing that helped me get anywhere. And I finally decided I didn't really understand what was involved in this problem, since I couldn't even see what difference different distances would make. It seemed intuitively to me that the rates could be adjusted to make almost any distance work out okay. There just did not seem to be sufficient information to limit the answer to one distance. So in order to see what factors were at work in this mess, to see what I needed, and to see what I seemed to be missing, I first picked an arbitrary distance, 1500 yards, just to see what would happen. When I did that, I saw a problem with the result, and what caused that problem -- what the limiting factors were-- so I then was able to see what was happening in the situation and then to figure out the equations I needed to solve it. Here's the deal: We know that the boats do not change their speeds, and we know that the time each boat travels to the first meeting place is the same. We also know that the time each boat travels from the first meeting place to the second meeting place is the same. Since their speeds do not change, the ratio of their speeds does not change. We can also represent all that. So here it goes: Call the width of the river in yards X. I am calling the rate of the boat that travels 700 yards from its shoreline to the first meeting point R1, and the rate of the other boat R2. I am calling the amount of times for each boat T1 and T2 respectively then. The boats then are also referred to as boat1 and boat2. The distance boat1, D1, goes to the first meeting is 700 yards (given in the problem). The distance boat2 goes to the first meeting then is (X - 700) yards. The first boat's speed during the first part of the trip is R1 = (D1/T1) And the second boat's speed during the first part of the trip R2 = (D2/T2) So the ratio of their speeds during the first part of the trip (i.e., to the first meeting place) is (D1/T1)/(D2/T2) That will also be the ratio of their speeds to each other during the second part of the trip (i.e., from the first meeting place to the second meeting place) because their speeds do not change. Notice, however, that in each part of the trip, the boats travel for the same amount of time as each other. (They don't necessarily travel the same amount of time in each trip as they did in the other trip, but they travel the same amount of time as each other in the same trips -- i.e., they each travel for a same amount of time to meet each other the first time, and then they each travel a [possibly different] same amount of time for the part from there till they meet again.) That means the T's in the denominators cancel out and we can disregard them. Therefore the ratio of their speeds to each other will be the same ratio as their distances they each travel. That is R1/R2 = (D1)/(D2) Some of you may have seen this directly, but I didn't. It makes sense when you come to think of it, of course, because they are each going a constant speed for the same time and that means the faster one will go further by the ratio of its

Other Rate x Something = Something Else Problems The same ideas apply to any sorts of problems that have to do with anything like rates, whether of speeds, monitary fees (costs/unit), dilution rates of chemicals, proportional rates of quantities, percentages, batting averages (batting average x official "at bats" = hits), etc. E.g, apples are $12/bushel and oranges are $20/bushel, so how much of each will make up 6 bushels of fruit at an average of $18/bushel? If b = the number of bushels of apples in the mix, then (6-b) will equal the number of bushels of oranges. And we know that the total cost of the final mix will be 6 bushels x $18/bushel, which will be $108. This total will be what the apples and the oranges sell for together: (b bushels of apples x $12/bushel) + [(6-b) bushels of oranges x $20/bushel] = $108 $12b + $120 - $20b = $108 $12 = $8b b = 1.5 bushels of apples, and therefore 6-b = 4.5 bushels of oranges. Checking the answer, we get: 1.5 bushels of apples x $12/bushel = $18 worth of apples 4.5 bushels of oranges x $20/bushel = $90 worth of oranges Which gives 6 bushels of fruit worth a total of $108, or $18/bushel. And Now a Really Difficult and Strange One As a BrainTeaser Someone sent me the following rate, time, distance problem that took me forever to solve, and at first I was certain there was not sufficient information to solve it, but it turned out there was. I give it to you here as a kind of supreme test, and also to torment you as it tormented me in a brain-teaser kind of way. By the way, I sent it to someone I had met on the Internet and he solved it much too quickly. I hope it takes all of you at least as long as it took me: There are two boats that start out on opposite sides of a river at the same time. Each one is heading across the river to the

speed. For example, if it is going twice as fast, it will go twice as far in the same amount of time. If it is going one and a half times faster, it will go one and a half times farther if they both travel the same amount of time. Since their speeds do not ever change during the entire trip, we know that the ratios of their speeds during the first part of the trip will be the same as the ratio of their speeds during the second part of the trip. This means that the ratio of their distances for each part of the trip will be the same, which is to say (D1)/(D2) for the first part of the trip is equal to (D1)/(D2) for the second part of the trip. And we have the numbers for those distances, expressed in X, the width of the river. So we can plug in the numbers we have: In the trip to the first meeting, boat1 goes 700 yards. Boat2 goes (X - 700) yards. So the ratio of their distances (which is the same as the ratio of their rates, is): 700/(X-700) for the first part of their trip (i.e., from starting out till the time they first meet). Boat1 then continues on to the bank, which is (X - 700) yards away, and then it turns around and goes back 300 yards. Therefore after the first meeting, boat1 travels (X - 700) + 300, which is (X - 400) yards. After the first meeting Boat2 travels 700 yards to the bank and then turns around and travels back (X - 300) yards, which is (X + 400) yards, where it then meets Boat1 again. But the ratio of the speeds of both boats to each other is the same as it was before, and the ratio of the distances to each other is thus the same as it was before, so now we finally get the equation that will yield the value of X. The ratio of the distances of boat1/boat2 the first trip = the ratio of the distances of boat1/boat2 the second trip. Or, symbolically, that is (D1)/(D2) for the first trip = (D1)/(D2) for the second trip, and we can substitute all our known D's to get: Ratio of distance in the first leg of the trip of boat1 to boat2 is 700/(X-700) Ratio of distance in the second leg of the trip of boat1 to boat2 is [(X-400)/(X+400)] and since these ratios are equal to each other: 700/(X-700) = [(X-400)/(X+400)] Cross-multiplying gives us: 700X + 280,000 = X2 - 1100X + 280,000 Which gives us 1800X = X2 And dividing both sides by X gives us 1800 = X So the width of the river is 1800 yards. To check that, we see that the first boat goes 700 yards in the same time it takes the second boat to go 1100 yards for the first meeting. So the ratio of their speeds (and the ratio of their distances) is 700/1100 or 7/11 in the first part of the trip. In the next part of the trip, the first boat goes the rest of the way to the other side (1100 yards) and then back 300 yard, a total of 1400 yards in the second leg, and the second boat goes 700 to the shore and then has to go back 1500 yards to get within 300 yards of its home shore, which is a total distance of 2200 yards for its second leg. Hence, the ratio of their speeds (and the ratio of their distances) is 1400/2200, or also 7/11 in the second part of their trip, so it all checks out.