The forest 2

Brian is standing at a point A A on the circumference of a perfectly circular forest that has an area of 6400 π 6400\pi sq mi. Using his all knowing brain, he walks in a perfectly straight line towards his friends, camping at point B B chosen uniformly and at random (and independently of A A somewhere along the circumference of the woods. If the expected distance he travels to reach his friends can be represented as a π \frac{a}{\pi} , find a (in miles).

This problem was inspired by a slight misinterpretation of my other previously ambiguous problem.

This is part of the set Trevor's Ten


The answer is 320.

This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and, finally, (c) loading the non-javascript version of this page . We're sorry about the hassle.

2 solutions

Trevor Arashiro
Mar 15, 2015

ALL CREDIT FOR THIS SOLUTION GOES TO THE MAN WHO CALLS HIMSELF " @Brian Charlesworth " (I don't think it's his real name, it's just an alias. His real name is probably Einstein ;) )

This solution is copy pasted from The Forest

Without loss of generality, fix a starting point on the circumference. Draw a diameter through this point, and let the central angle θ \theta measured relative to the starting point vary uniformly from 0 0 to π \pi . (By symmetry we only have to consider "exit" points on one half of the circle). This will cover all the "exit" points on one half of the circle. Now, using Law of Cosine, the length L ( θ ) L(\theta) of a chord for a given value of θ \theta is given by

L 2 = r 2 + r 2 2 r 2 cos ( θ ) ) = 2 r 2 ( 1 ( 2 cos 2 ( θ 2 ) 1 ) ) = L^{2} = r^{2}+r^2- 2 r^2\cos(\theta)) = 2r^{2}(1 - (2\cos^{2}(\frac{\theta}{2}) - 1)) =

4 r 2 ( 1 cos 2 ( θ 2 ) ) = 4 r 2 sin 2 ( θ 2 ) 4r^{2}(1 - \cos^{2}(\frac{\theta}{2})) = 4r^{2}\sin^{2}(\frac{\theta}{2})

L = 2 r sin ( θ 2 ) \Longrightarrow L = 2r\sin(\frac{\theta}{2}) for 0 θ π . 0 \le \theta \le \pi.

Thus, using the MVT, the expected length of a path out of the forest will be

1 π 0 π 2 r sin ( θ 2 ) d θ = 4 r π 0 π 2 sin ( u ) d u = 4 r π ( cos ( π 2 ) ( cos ( 0 ) ) ) = 4 r π . \displaystyle\dfrac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\pi} 2r\sin(\frac{\theta}{2}) d\theta = \dfrac{4r}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \sin(u) du = \dfrac{4r}{\pi}(-\cos(\frac{\pi}{2}) - (-\cos(0))) = \dfrac{4r}{\pi}.

Note that the substitution u = θ 2 u = \frac{\theta}{2} was made, giving us 2 d u = d θ 2 du = d\theta with u u going from 0 0 to π 2 \frac{\pi}{2} as θ \theta went from 0 0 to π \pi .

@Brian Charlesworth you can post your solution to this problem if you want. Once you do I'll delete this one.

Trevor Arashiro - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Thanks for that option, but it looks just fine as is. :) Just a few comments on the wording of the question itself:

(i) "towards" made an undesired repeat performance in the 7th line;

(ii) might be best to specify that the expected distance is in miles;

(iii) I think the word "random" should be placed somewhere. Perhaps "... towards his friends, who are camping at a point B B chosen uniformly and at random (and independently of A A ) somewhere on the circumference of the woods." Sorry for being fussy, but I was just trying to anticipate any potential disputes.

And I've always dreamt of having Einstein's, (or Gödel's), brain in my skull for a day, just to get an idea of what genius actually feels like. I guess I'd have to set it up so that there would be parallel brain activity so I would maintain a sense of myself and have a lasting memory of the experience, but just to get a cerebral snapshot of how they actually processed the world around them would be priceless. Sigh.....

P.S.. Thanks for making me the "star of the show" here. If only I had such a good sense of direction. (It's not bad, but to walk 320 π \frac{320}{\pi} miles in a straight line would be inhuman lol).

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

Haha, once again, thanks for fixing the small errors. And you're welcome, lol.

Your wording and procedure of having the brain of Einstein is quite intricate. Taking his brain but remaining in your conscious as to have a lasting memory of the event. I too wish that I could feel what it is like to be a genius, all the different perspectives I'd have on the world, being able to solve those problems which seem impossible to me. Guess the only way for that to happen is for me to get smarter and be like them or become smart enough to make a machine to become like them.

That poses the question, "will the object ever become smarter than it's maker? Will there be a program smart enough to make itself smarter than its programmer?" Since theoretically, to make a machine that increases your IQ to say "x", wouldn't your IQ at least have to be x? The argument "Humans can't compute log(2), but computers can" and others of the like are irrelevant here because humans figured out a way to make computing those numbers possible. I've had this on my mind for a while, just had to pose it.

Trevor Arashiro - 6 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

@Trevor Arashiro I have a lot of thoughts on this topic, but I should probably wait to write them out when I can actually keep my eyes open. To be continued .....

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 3 months ago

@Trevor Arashiro There's a story by Jorge Luis Borges, (the third of my top three geniuses), called "Pierre Menard: Author of the Quixote", which is, among other interpretations, a cautionary tale of the pitfalls of precise imitation through immersion. I don't really know if becoming "immersed" in Einstein's synaptic patterns would help us see the world any differently; there were some notable anomalies in his brain, (denser in the prefrontal region, enlarged parietal lobes and a thicker corpus callosum, for example), which (likely) left him better equipped for mathematical thought and visualization, but for the most part it was within 'standard parameters'. So as you say, it is probably more productive to just focus on nurturing the unique perspective and capacity we each have to offer the world.

As for the notion of creating "machines" smarter than their makers, in a sense we already do that by having children. In psychology there is a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect, which in a nutshell is the well-documented fact that scores on a variety of intelligence tests have been increasing from generation to generation over the last century, (i.e., ever since such tests were standardized). There is much speculation as to why this is occurring, from better nutrition, (especially pre-natal and post-natal), education and the like, but the effect seems to be accelerating, and my theory is that modern information technology is the cause of this acceleration. Adapting to technology is fundamentally altering the "process of mind", especially in formative brains, to the point that it will slowly but inevitably alter the evolution of our species, (for better or worse, only time will tell). This brings up the question: are we in control of machines, or have they already taken control of us? Who is the master now? No, I don't think that there is any "invisible hand" at work here; it's more of a symbiotic relationship. However, I don't consider scenarios such as those explored in T.V. shows such as "Person of Interest" that far-fetched, either.

Having said that, AI research hasn't progressed as far as I anticipated it would back in the 80's. (If you ever have the time, have a read of "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hafstadter. It was a "hub" book for me, not only for its own brilliance but for all the great works it led me to explore.) I suppose that this is a testament to the complexity of the human brain, but I think that we just expected too much of the immediate potential for computers back then. I suspect that new advance with circuit technology will help the cause, though. Memristors are circuit device that "remember" their history, which I think will more closely mimic neural activity. This better facilitates the process of "independent learning", especially from mistakes, which is the key for a machine to "make itself smarter than its programmer." We live in interesting times. :)

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. I'm not sure what fields of study you plan to pursue, (you seem to have a lot of interests), but AI and neuroscience would certainly make for interesting choices. Perhaps you'll be the one that comes up with an Einstein Machine which will save humanity from itself.

P.S.. Hope your brain has recovered from that killer chemistry test. :)

Brian Charlesworth - 6 years, 2 months ago
Chenyang Sun
Mar 28, 2015

I know the ambiguity: The randomizing method is either choosing a point at random on the circle's circumference or choosing it as the intersection between the circle and a randomly chosen angle from A. See Martin Gardner for more info.

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...