[2013-Mar-26] 2927

[Rockchurch]

You're all overthinking it.

y = 0x + 0.5

[UnicornBacon]

so it wouldnt be a line. it would be a single plot point.

at the rightmost part of the graph, only a single point from the top.

where 0 on the emptyness line would indicate totally filled, one unit from the top would indicate a single point.
the width of the graph is 100% so the point would be in the rightmost aspect of said graph.

am i doing it right?

[Maze1125]

You're all overthinking it.

y = 0x + 0.5

Two questions:
1) Why are you arbitrarily defining the area below the line as "not empty"? What has it been filled with?
2) Why have you written the equation as y = 0x + 0.5? You do know that's just the same as y = 0.5, right?

As has already been explained, the question is unanswerable as it stands as "emptiness", as used, has not be clearly defined.

[Rockchurch]

As has already been explained, the question is unanswerable as it stands as "emptiness", as used, has not be clearly defined.

No, it's unanswerable, only if you choose to ignore the most obvious interpretation of 'emptiness'.

1) Why are you arbitrarily defining the area below the line as "not empty"? What has it been filled with?

See above.

[TheOtherOne]

The answer is a single point at (0, inf). A point has no area so it does not add width or take away from the emptiness. The graph of a single point has 0 width and is infinitely empty.

It can't be anything other than a single data point, because it's referring to this specific graph, which after submitting, has a constant width and area (unless you submitted an animation or something).

EDIT: Actually windytan's answer is a little more correct than mine. Just depends on how you define your units.

[ThePeople]

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

Ah, good. I don't want to abuse my pony power. Well, any more than what's inherent in using it at all.
Thanks for stepping up, ThePeople.

[Lethal Interjection]

You're all overthinking it.

y = 0x + 0.5

Hahaha.
They (you) are, aren't they (you).

[Cocio_16]

Why the hell the width of this graph would change ? It’s a constant. Thus, the emptiness will be a constant too.

a = width
b = emptiness
the values of the width and the emptiness equals whatever you want.

Put a point at (a,b).

A point as no width.

You get 100%

[Cocio_16]

Why the hell the width of this graph would change ? It’s a constant. Thus, the emptiness will be a constant too.

a = width
b = emptiness
the values of the width and the emptiness equals whatever you want.

Put a point at (a,b).

A point as no width.

You get 100%

Fuck I read the thread before I posted this. Why I didn’t see two person had already give the same answer.

[Bahgragblerable]

Hm, what if you drew a line down? Into the negative axis that is...maybe one or both? Granted the space given doesn't allow you to do it nicely but you could make do with the margins of the page.


I'm sorry I'm doped up on cayenne and it's late, but I believe this debate is what the comic means by "Destroy a math class". We'll start feeding on each other soon.

[Zarkov!]

Completely fill the graph area with white-out?

[Guest]

Why not just have a graph that goes negative?

Easiest 100pts in a test ever!

[Maze1125]

As has already been explained, the question is unanswerable as it stands as "emptiness", as used, has not be clearly defined.

No, it's unanswerable, only if you choose to ignore the most obvious interpretation of 'emptiness'.

I see at least two options for "emptiness" neither of which is inherently more obvious than the other.
It could be actual-blank-space/potential-blank-space or it could simply be actual-blank-space.
If the former, the the graph is a horizontal line at 1 or, if you consider the line to have some thickness, slightly below 1.
If the latter, the graph is an increasing straight-line from (0,0).

1) Why are you arbitrarily defining the area below the line as "not empty"? What has it been filled with?

See above.

[/quote]
I see nothing above that answers that question.

[ThePeople]

You people need to look at the picture a lot more closely. You don't seem to understand it.