Which clock works better?
The one that loses a minute a day or the one that doesn't work at all?
11 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The clock that does not move at all show the correct time twice a day. The clock that loses a minute a day only shows the correct time every two years.
I think the one loses a minute a day takes 12x60=720 days to show the right time again. i.e. it shows the right time once in 720 days (if we do not take into account even the smallest variations in terms of microseconds). But the clock which does not work at all shows the right time twice in a day, leaving to 1440 times in 720 days, and so the latter one seems to work better (in a theoretical point of view).
1. It depends what kind of accuracy one wants. If one wants minimize the aggregate gaps between the real time and the watch for the period of 1 day, then the slow watch is better than the stopped one. But if one wants maximize the duration of zero gap between the real time and the watch, then the stopped one is better.
2. If one likes to see something moving, then the moving one is better. Otherwise, the stopped one is better.
3. If one likes the number 3 and one or both arms point number 3, then the stopped one is better.
A clock moves backward (think of a digital clock whose number is going down) will hit the exact time more than twice a day depending on how fast it is moving. Is this a better clock than the stopped one?
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
well if you ask which one "works" better and this clearly states that one of the clocks does not work at all then this must mean the clock which loses a minute a day does indeed "work" better compared to one that does not work at all.
11 comments:
The clock that does not move at all show the correct time twice a day. The clock that loses a minute a day only shows the correct time every two years.
I think the one loses a minute a day takes 12x60=720 days to show the right time again. i.e. it shows the right time once in 720 days (if we do not take into account even the smallest variations in terms of microseconds). But the clock which does not work at all shows the right time twice in a day, leaving to 1440 times in 720 days, and so the latter one seems to work better (in a theoretical point of view).
1. It depends what kind of accuracy one wants. If one wants minimize the aggregate gaps between the real time and the watch for the period of 1 day, then the slow watch is better than the stopped one. But if one wants maximize the duration of zero gap between the real time and the watch, then the stopped one is better.
2. If one likes to see something moving, then the moving one is better. Otherwise, the stopped one is better.
3. If one likes the number 3 and one or both arms point number 3, then the stopped one is better.
"Better" Too vague...
"More Useful" is the slow one as you can know the time if you know the loss and a correct starting point.
"Right More Often" is the broken one as it would be right twice a day assuming is a 12 hr face.
Assamese answer if the clock is one minute per day fast, rather than slow?
A clock moves backward (think of a digital clock whose number is going down) will hit the exact time more than twice a day depending on how fast it is moving. Is this a better clock than the stopped one?
I am not sure what happened to the first word, but I was trying to ask if the answer is the same if the clock was running one minute fast.
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
Which clock 'works' better----- it's obvious the one actually moving is working... The one 'not working' is not working at all. Even if 'time' brings you to a relative point on the clock face, the clock did not work to get you there, time did... Therefore, the one working is the one working better.
well if you ask which one "works" better and this clearly states that one of the clocks does not work at all then this must mean the clock which loses a minute a day does indeed "work" better compared to one that does not work at all.
Post a Comment