piece of string

Joined: 01 May 2004 Location: dandenong vic

had an arguement at work today about the age old question.

How long is a piece of string.

What do you guys think??

Joined: 03 Sep 2006 Location: where ever the track takes me

double the length from one side to the middle!

Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 8:09 pm

muddydigger wrote:

double the length from one side to the middle!

you are wrong........ it's this long

|<------------------------------------------------->|

Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Location: Perth, WA

The world about us looks so bewilderingly complex, it seems impossible that humans could ever understand it completely. But dig deeper, and the richness and variety of nature are found to stem from just a handful of underlying mathematical principles. So rapid has been the advance of science in elucidating this hidden subtext of nature that many scientists, especially theoretical physicists, believe we are on the verge of formulating a "theory of everything".

When Stephen Hawking accepted the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University in 1980 he chose as the title of his inaugural lecture: "Is the end in sight for theoretical physics?" What he meant was that physicists could glimpse the outlines of a final theory, in which all the laws of nature would be melded into a single, elegant mathematical scheme, perhaps so simple and compact it could be emblazoned on your T-shirt. Now Hawking has done something of a U-turn by claiming in a lecture at Cambridge last month that we will never be able to grasp in totality how the universe is put together.

The quest for a final theory began 2500 years ago. The Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus suggested that however complicated the world might seem to human eyes, it was fundamentally simple. If only we could look on a small enough scale of size, we would see that everything is made up of just a handful of basic building blocks, which the Greeks called atoms. It was then a matter of identifying these elementary particles, and classifying them, for all to be explained.

Today we know atoms are not the elementary particles the Greek philosophers supposed, but composite bodies with bits inside. However, this hasn't scuppered the essential idea that a bottom level of structure exists on a small enough scale. Physicists have been busy peering into the innards of atoms to expose what they hope is the definitive set of truly primitive entities from which everything in the universe is built. The best guess is that the ultimate building blocks of matter are not particles at all, but little loops of vibrating string about 20 powers of 10 smaller than an atomic nucleus.

String theory has been enormously beguiling, and occupies the attention of physicists and mathematicians. It promises to describe correctly not only the inventory of familiar particles but the forces that act between them, like electromagnetism and gravity. It could even explain the existence of space and time, too.

Though string theorists are upbeat about achieving the much sought-after theory of everything, others remain sceptical about the entire enterprise. A bone of contention has always surrounded the word "everything". Understanding the basic building blocks of physical reality wouldn't help explain how life originated, or why people fall in love. Only if these things are dismissed as insignificant embellishments on the basic scheme would the physicist's version of a final theory amount to a true theory of everything.

Then there is a deeper question of whether a finite mind can ever fully grasp all of reality. By common consent, the most secure branch of human knowledge is mathematics. It rests on rational foundations, and its results flow seamlessly from sequences of precise definitions and logical deductions. Who could doubt that 1+1=2, for example? But in the 1930s the Austrian philosopher Kurt Godel stunned mathematicians by proving beyond doubt that the grand and elaborate edifice of mathematics was built on sand. It turns out that mathematical systems rich enough to contain arithmetic are shot through with logical contradictions. Any given mathematical statement (eg, 11 is a prime number) must either be true or false, right?

Wrong! Godel showed that however elaborate mathematics becomes, there will always exist some statements (not the above ones though) that can never be proved true or false. They are fundamentally undecidable. Hence mathematics will always be incomplete and in a sense uncertain.

Because physical theories are cast in the language of mathematics, they are subject to the limitations of Godel's theorem. Many physicists have remarked that this will preclude a truly complete theory of everything. Now it seems Hawking has joined their ranks.

So does this mean physicists should give up string theory and other attempts at unifying the laws of nature, if their efforts are doomed to failure? Certainly not, for the same reason that we don't give up teaching and researching mathematics because of Godel's theorem. What these logical conundrums tell us is there are limits to what can be known using the rational method of inquiry. It means that however heroic our efforts may be at understanding the world about us, there will remain some element of mystery at the end of the universe.

Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Location: Found

What language? in COBOL its 160 characters... For a PHP GET its 2048...

Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Location: Perth, WA

considering chuck norris once counted to infinity...twice... i think ill ask him what the answer is...

ok chuck said its this long

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Joined: 02 Jan 2008 Location: Mackay, Sunshine State

From the middle to the end doubled. Or as long as you should cut it/find it.

Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:12 pm

built4thrashing wrote:

How long is a piece of string.

Not quite as long as a sticky hanging booger that's been stuck on a shop window.

(thanks to the booger thread for that inspiration)

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:34 am

half as long as twice it's length

as long as the length i cut it to

as long as the length written on the spool it was purchased on

there is no "piece of string" it is a "length of string"

instead of thinking why is the string long, you must realise. the string is not really there at all

what defines a string from a rope

what defines a string from a cord

is a string really a string? are you sure it is not a hair?

piss off. that's the 1st years job to measure shit and waste time!

Joined: 07 Aug 2003 Location: Townsville

usually very short, but fark it's wide Wink

Joined: 07 Aug 2003 Location: Townsville

2" shorter tha I need it to be cussing

Joined: 20 Nov 2002 Location: Melbourne

Sorry, but I think you are all incorrect.......

Howlong is a Chinaman

It is also a town on the Murray River aboput 40k from Albury

Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Location: Adelaide

We've already had consensus - over 50% of OL members agreed.

http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/phpBB2/ftopic124367.php

Joined: 01 May 2004 Location: dandenong vic

im with chikoroll_ on this one. a piece of string is only a tiny bit of what makes up a string.
The question should be "how long is a length of string.?"

the way i see it is "LONG " is measured in distance and "Piece" is measured in mass or volume.

but i could be completely wrong