Good Morning

Just a small diversion but one of interest to me.

How long is a piece of string?

I may consider awards for the most accurate answers .

Phil in Northampton

A piece of string is twice as long as it is when folded in half !

Interesting answer but I’m afraid it doesn’t stand up to close examination!

Phil in Northampton

phil_in_npton wrote:Good Morning

Just a small diversion but one of interest to me.

How long is a piece of string?

I may consider awards for the most accurate answers .

Phil in Northampton

Morning Phil,

There is a definite answer to this. I have read it. I have the answer in a book somewhere. Honest. I have just spent 20 minutes of my life looking through my bookshelf trying to find the book but can’t find it. Aargh, what have you done. This will be a bloody obsession now until I find it. Cheers mate.

Another one in the book was - what came first, the chicken or the egg. I know the answer to that one without referring to the book.

pembsexile wrote:

phil_in_npton wrote:Good Morning

Just a small diversion but one of interest to me.

How long is a piece of string?

I may consider awards for the most accurate answers .

Phil in Northampton

Morning Phil,

There is a definite answer to this. I have read it. I have the answer in a book somewhere. Honest. I have just spent 20 minutes of my life looking through my bookshelf trying to find the book but can’t find it. Aargh, what have you done. This will be a bloody obsession now until I find it. Cheers mate.

Another one in the book was - what came first, the chicken or the egg. I know the answer to that one without referring to the book.

Obviously the egg in evolutionary terms.

Correct Oldcromwellian. Chicken, egg, chicken, egg etc. Go back 100s of millions of years. At some stage, the animal that you see is about to mutate into a chicken, but it hasn’t done so yet. Unless you discount the theory of evolution of course. It will though have come from an egg.

Thanks both, but please keep to the topic, ie String and not eggs, otherwise the thread will be moved to the other side!

I’m sorry Mike but claiming you know without any factual evidence doesn’t cut it. You’re just stringing me along.

Phil in Northampton

phil_in_npton wrote:Thanks both, but please keep to the topic, ie String and not eggs, otherwise the thread will be moved to the other side!

I’m sorry Mike but claiming you know without any factual evidence doesn’t cut it. You’re just stringing me along.

Phil in Northampton

I will find it.

I just found a piece of string the answer is 10 inches

Ok, this is not my answer but from a reference book.

We have to define the limits. So, probably nothing shorter than 1cm will be classified as a piece of string. It might be fibre, but not string.
The upper limit is dictated by the practicalities of manufacture. A string factory would probably not install cranes above one tonne capacity and as the string will probably be on a spool, it is unlikely that the string will weigh above a ton.
String diameter is not normally less than 1.5mm and fine string will probably fall apart. A density of 0.7 is the worst case.
So, the length of a piece of string is 5822195 plus or minus 5822194.99 metres.
At 0.7kg/litre the estimate of volume is not greater than 1000kg divided by 0.7kg/litre which is,
1429 litres or approx 1.429 metres cubed.
Therefore the maximum length is the volume divided by the area which is 1.429 metres cubed divided by pi, multiplied by 0.625 mm squared.
So, the string is not greater than 11644.39 kilometres and not less than 1cm.

pembsexile wrote:Ok, this is not my answer but from a reference book.

We have to define the limits. So, probably nothing shorter than 1cm will be classified as a piece of string. It might be fibre, but not string.
The upper limit is dictated by the practicalities of manufacture. A string factory would probably not install cranes above one tonne capacity and as the string will probably be on a spool, it is unlikely that the string will weigh above a ton.
String diameter is not normally less than 1.5mm and fine string will probably fall apart. A density of 0.7 is the worst case.
So, the length of a piece of string is 5822195 plus or minus 5822194.99 metres.
At 0.7kg/litre the estimate of volume is not greater than 1000kg divided by 0.7kg/litre which is,
1429 litres or approx 1.429 metres cubed.
Therefore the maximum length is the volume divided by the area which is 1.429 metres cubed divided by pi, multiplied by 0.625 mm squared.
So, the string is not greater than 11644.39 kilometres and not less than 1cm.

Don't give this equation to The Newport. Or he'll come up with £80,000,000.

Thanks Mike, a very comprehensive appraisal of the question but all a bit vague in relation to a final answer. What actually defines string, as opposed to rope, thread or twine. Hold on, forget twine or it will be moved to the football side.
And further more what does “ a string of pearls” relate to in regards value to length?

Phil in Northampton

Let me join this discussion with a question which boggles my mind.

Imagine a line of plates which is infinitely long The pattern which follows is also infinite. There are nine red plates followed by one blue plate. Which of course that red plates outnumber blue plates nine to one. However, as the line is infinite, therefore there is are infinite number of blue plates, and as you can't have a number greater than infinity then of course there can't be more red plates than blue.

I know, you don't need to tell me. I blame lockdown.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Let me join this discussion with a question which boggles my mind.

Imagine a line of plates which is infinitely long The pattern which follows is also infinite. There are nine red plates followed by one blue plate. Which of course that red plates outnumber blue plates nine to one. However, as the line is infinite, therefore there is are infinite number of blue plates, and as you can't have a number greater than infinity then of course there can't be more red plates than blue.

I know, you don't need to tell me. I blame lockdown.

The problem is with the word infinity. There is no such thing. It is just a mathematical concept to illustrate a number, distance etc that is so big that we cannot comprehend what it is. Your example is hypothetical, not real.

Look at the Universe. It is supposed to be infinite. It is not. It is finite and currently expanding. If it was infinite, it wouldn’t be able to expand.

pembsexile wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Let me join this discussion with a question which boggles my mind.

Imagine a line of plates which is infinitely long The pattern which follows is also infinite. There are nine red plates followed by one blue plate. Which of course that red plates outnumber blue plates nine to one. However, as the line is infinite, therefore there is are infinite number of blue plates, and as you can't have a number greater than infinity then of course there can't be more red plates than blue.

I know, you don't need to tell me. I blame lockdown.

The problem is with the word infinity. There is no such thing. It is just a mathematical concept to illustrate a number, distance etc that is so big that we cannot comprehend what it is. Your example is hypothetical, not real.

Look at the Universe. It is supposed to be infinite. It is not. It is finite and currently expanding. If it was infinite, it wouldn’t be able to expand.

Hi Mike,

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into. Have to say that the Steven Hawkins reply of that was a silly question rather like what is north of the north pole seemed a bit of a cop out.

How long before we start talking about the double slit experiment. I'm pretty certain you'll know about that but if you don't be prepared to have your brain well and truly frazzled.