squareroot造句

• Why does " T " equal the squareroot of 2 earth years?
• The area at the first stage is the squareroot of 3 divided by 4.
• From the 3D POV this would satisfy my squareroot 2 clause about a 3D being would be able to go the shorter distance right?
• So the 3D viewer would, if seeing the 2D creature move along the xy points, percieve the path at some fractional degree from the perfect-Squareroot 2 path-which means the 3D viewer would be able to see the 2D creature's energy expenditure adhere to my postulation . . . . 2D travelers always expend square root 2 times more energy when the 3D viewer multiply this with hmmm is it cosinus or sinus ? ( Perfect angle view that makes a straight line away from the XY plane ) That's the hint for ?PI value.
• :: I am interested in finding out if there is some merit to the idea that'my'3D viewer-if it wanted to travel the same distance as the 2D creature-could do so while expending at least squareroot 2 times less energy as the 2D creature-because the 3D creature would ALWAYS travel in the straight AB line not some xyxyxyyyyyxxyyxyy path as the 2D creature had to . . . perfect conditions would in my mind suggest this squareroot 2 times less-because the fastest 2D creature would only travbel one X and then one Y . Drawing it up on a XY crossed paper this could look like going from 0, 0 to 6, 4 . . . . but the 3D viewer would just'measure'the AB distance-The view angle of the 3D creature will if it's not perfectly squareroot 2 times the distance be a candidate to a formula where you can figure out the angle where one observer sees the AB distance for the 2d creature as XY = 5, 8 but the actual 3D viever just sess this as the perfect 90 degree travel path for the 2D creature . . so the actual distance / time used traveling would be 1, 1 times ( co ) sinus the angle
• :: I am interested in finding out if there is some merit to the idea that'my'3D viewer-if it wanted to travel the same distance as the 2D creature-could do so while expending at least squareroot 2 times less energy as the 2D creature-because the 3D creature would ALWAYS travel in the straight AB line not some xyxyxyyyyyxxyyxyy path as the 2D creature had to . . . perfect conditions would in my mind suggest this squareroot 2 times less-because the fastest 2D creature would only travbel one X and then one Y . Drawing it up on a XY crossed paper this could look like going from 0, 0 to 6, 4 . . . . but the 3D viewer would just'measure'the AB distance-The view angle of the 3D creature will if it's not perfectly squareroot 2 times the distance be a candidate to a formula where you can figure out the angle where one observer sees the AB distance for the 2d creature as XY = 5, 8 but the actual 3D viever just sess this as the perfect 90 degree travel path for the 2D creature . . so the actual distance / time used traveling would be 1, 1 times ( co ) sinus the angle
• :: I am interested in finding out if there is some merit to the idea that'my'3D viewer-if it wanted to travel the same distance as the 2D creature-could do so while expending at least squareroot 2 times less energy as the 2D creature-because the 3D creature would ALWAYS travel in the straight AB line not some xyxyxyyyyyxxyyxyy path as the 2D creature had to . . . perfect conditions would in my mind suggest this squareroot 2 times less-because the fastest 2D creature would only travbel one X and then one Y . Drawing it up on a XY crossed paper this could look like going from 0, 0 to 6, 4 . . . . but the 3D viewer would just'measure'the AB distance-The view angle of the 3D creature will if it's not perfectly squareroot 2 times the distance be a candidate to a formula where you can figure out the angle where one observer sees the AB distance for the 2d creature as XY = 5, 8 but the actual 3D viever just sess this as the perfect 90 degree travel path for the 2D creature . . so the actual distance / time used traveling would be 1, 1 times ( co ) sinus the angle