Problem 901
Forum rules
As your posts will be visible to the general public you are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
As your posts will be visible to the general public you are requested to be thoughtful in not posting anything that might explicitly give away how to solve a particular problem.
This forum is NOT meant to discuss solution methods for a problem.
In particular don't post any code fragments or results.
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
Don't start begging others to give partial answers to problems
Don't ask for hints how to solve a problem
Don't start a new topic for a problem if there already exists one
See also the topics:
Don't post any spoilers
Comments, questions and clarifications about PE problems.
-
wim59
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:35 am
Problem 901
As a physicist I feel obliged to suggest that you add a disclaimer that your machine is not like a real-life machine, in that it will keep drilling to a preselected depth even if it were to hit water. That had me confused for a while...
-
ConnorColombe
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2024 4:34 am
Re: Problem 901
Does it also take $d$ time to pull the drill back up? Or can we just begin drilling once we have the result of our previous drill?
-
brob26
- Administrator
- Posts: 804
- Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:48 am
Re: Problem 901
It takes no time to pull the drill back up. You can begin the next drilling immediately after the previous drilling has finished.ConnorColombe wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:04 am Does it also take $d$ time to pull the drill back up? Or can we just begin drilling once we have the result of our previous drill?
-
neverforget
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:10 pm
Re: Problem 901
Problem 901 (View Problem)
I feel like the setup would be a lot clearer if instead of drilling, we were to send one-way disposable probes that take $d$ cost to survive up to $d$ depth
I feel like the setup would be a lot clearer if instead of drilling, we were to send one-way disposable probes that take $d$ cost to survive up to $d$ depth
-
hackleberry
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2024 9:07 am
Re: Problem 901
It confuses me that the "groundwater depth is constant in the relevant area".
If all drilling locations are chosen in the same "relevant area" this conflicts with the groundwater depth being a random variable.
If not, what does the "relevant area" mean in this context?
Thanks for any help
If all drilling locations are chosen in the same "relevant area" this conflicts with the groundwater depth being a random variable.
If not, what does the "relevant area" mean in this context?
Thanks for any help
-
Eulerchen
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:50 pm
Re: Problem 901
The depth of the groundwater is random, that means, you don't know it, before you find it.
But at each try for a drill, this unknown depth is the same.
But at each try for a drill, this unknown depth is the same.