Wednesday, May 25, 2011

NEWSFLASH: Right-angle isosceles triangles DO NOT EXIST!

For the mathematical buffs and geeks out there:

We know that √2 is an irrational number. But has anyone thought of the physical implication of this?

By Pythagoras' Theorem, it means that a right isosceles triangle with both sides of unit length x would have a hypotenuse of length √2x.
In a mathematical world, the three sides of the triangle would be continuum's. However, in the physical world, we know that the lines forming the three sides are really made up of discrete atoms.

Let us assume for simplicity that the lines are exactly one atom in thickness. This means that each of the two mutually-perpendicular sides would be made up of nx discrete number of atoms in a straight line. We shall also further assume that successive atoms are equidistant from one another.

It therefore follows that the hypotenuse would have to be formed by √2nx number of discrete atoms. But because √2 is an irrational number, √2nx discrete atoms is a physical impossibility.

Let us then assume that we attempt to achieve a discrete number of atoms on the hypotenuse, by splitting the atoms further into k equal parts, i.e. the number of atoms on the mutually-perpendicular side would be nx/k and that of the hypotenuse would be √2nx/k, where k is necessarily a positive integer. However, because √2 is already an irrational number, turning √2 into an integer would require an infinite number of moves of the decimal point to the right, i.e. k→∞ and the atoms are split so small, they become a continuum, which violates physical laws of atoms. Or, stated another way, only if the size of the triangle approaches infinity.

Therefore, a right isosceles triangle in the real world is a mathematical idealisation, but a physical impossibility. Neat, huh? 

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Sir, there's pee on my tap...


The hygiene benefit of washing hands under a tap faucet after peeing is a myth. No, I'm not being cute here. Think about it: 
  1. You pee. Droplets of pee fall onto your supporting hand (I mean, why else do you have to wash your hands after peeing?). 
  2. You go to the sink and turn the tap. The droplets of pee are transferred to the tap.
  3. You scrub your hands with soap till they are so clean, they shine like a baby's bottom. Oh, and I assume that you rinsed your hands before handling the soap dispenser, or else droplets of pee are also transferred to the soap dispenser button. 
  4. You turn off the tap. The droplets of pee are transferred back to your hand (and some are left behind on the tap)
  5. You open the toilet door. Some droplets of pee are transferred from your hand to the door handle. 
  6. Repeat with the next dozen or so people who use the same toilet. 
  7. Result: You have a potpourri of a dozen people's pee on:
    • your hands 
    • the tap 
    • the toilet door handle 
    • the soap dispenser button, if you were a prick and did not rinse your hands before using
And I won't even go into the scenario of taking a dump. Better check them old copper taps; the colour camouflages brown pretty well.

Solutions: 
  1. Sensor-activated faucets and soap dispensers (foolproof, but expensive) 
  2. Continuously running water (wasteful, bad for the environment)
  3. Push-type faucets, i.e. the ones installed at hotels and departmental stores, where the knobs slowly rise back up after de-pressing and cut off the water (okay, this will work, but is frustrating when you need the water to run for longer; and it still doesn't solve the problem of having a whole potpourri of pee collected on the knobs).

Friday, May 20, 2011

No car, no driving test? 駕駛測試必需自己提供車輛?

I fail to understand the logic behind the New South Wales Road Transport Authority requiring driving test candidates to supply their own cars for their tests. The very fact that the candidates have to sit for the driving test means they do not have a driver's license yet. And anyone without a driver's license has no business owning a car. No car rental company would rent them a car without a driver's license, anyway.
So, what were they expecting the poor buggers to do - borrow their friend's Maserati for the day?
我甚不瞭解澳洲新南威爾士州交通運輸部要求駕駛測試考生自己提供車輛之道理。敬諸讀者思之: 凡進行駕駛測試者確無駕駛執照。非持有駕駛執照者不宜擁有自己之車輛。汽車租賃商實不租賃車輛給非持有駕駛執照者。則車輛何處而來?豈與朋友借其名貴之『瑪莎拉蒂跑車爲測試駕駛車輛乎?