Interesting, some of you suggested that some parameters were missing like the time they started and having a correct code (or more efficient). PS: Why is it that no one payed attention that the timings were actually inverted? The beach-house programmer should have recorded 7 minutes while the mountain man should have recorded 5 minutes. If the timings were to stay the same, then of course beach man wins.
For the starting time, it's typical to have both programmers start a competition at the same moment, but for argument's sake we will say it: both programmers start programming as soon as an accurate clock strikes 12 (as a separate reference, it's placed in a separate region that's equidistant to both locations and the gravitational forces upon it are accounted for; the time intervals are not measured according to that clock however but with very accurate clocks placed near each of them). The time difference between the regions doesn't matter as we are judging based on time intervals and not time instants.
As for the correct code, in any contest we agree that the timing occurs only when the programmers submit a correct answer.
ZeRaW and Samer99 proposed interesting argumentative points: does "faster" signify the programmers' speed or the code's speed? But seeing that the main argument states the time taken by the programmers to finish coding, then we're talking about the programmers' speed (nice notation by the way ZeRaW). How about the oxygen deficiency and having both programmers subjected to same conditions? Well, other than their location, every other condition they're subjected to must be similar to have a correct experiment (in an experiment, only one factor can be altered to study its effect). But truly what about the oxygen flow in the programmers' brains? It is related to their locations and is affected by it, so the programmer living in the mountains may have this disadvantage. Touchè, Samer99.
GN90 gave a justifiable cause for the time difference, and it comes in accordance with Einstein's general theory of relativity. But is the time difference caused by this theory really 2 minutes? I didn't state where the mountains and the beach are located, so it might just reach 2 minutes, but then again it might not. ILIA_93 provided some calculations, but failed to do the calculations for the other programmer and considered that the speed of the beach programmer is that of light (nice joke, turning the beach-house programmer into a beach bum :D). In the case given, you're right. But what if the time recordings were inverted? To see who truly wins, we'll even specify that the beach's coastline is that of Indian Ocean and the mountain is the tip of Mount Everest. What happens now?
rahmu mentioned the neutrinos (honestly thank you for shedding the light on them), but until now we cannot accept the results as viable. Einstein's general theory of relativity has been justified (using accurate clocks on a water tower in 1962 and by observing the variations on the elliptical trajectories of the planets throughout the past forty years). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two conditions: 1) it has to accurately describe a large class of observations (derived from a model with few arbitrary elements), 2) it must yield accurate predictions concerning results of future conducted observations. Since Einstein's theory satisfies both conditions, then it is thus far valid. Sine the neutrinos don't (yet), a theory related to their nature cannot be derived (yet).
And while Newton's theory of gravitational forces contradict a bit with Einstein's general theory of relativity, we still use them because they're easier to use in calculations and the situations where the Newtonian theory is used has very small differences in its predictions than those derived by Einstein's theory. We always rely on the Maxwell equations for atoms (small scale), Newton's laws for real-sized objects on Earth, and Einstein's equations for planets and stars in the outer space (large scale). Even Newton's theory states that the gravitational forces to which the beach programmer is subjected to are larger than that subjected to the programmer living in the mountains. But only Einstein's theory mentions the influence on time: the closer an object is to Earth's center, the higher the gravitational force, so the light takes more energy to travel up to top, hence increasing the light's frequency and decreasing its period. So mountain man sees everything in slow motion, and his very unfortunate clock indicates so. In the proposed case, he loses big time (the 7 minutes interval is actually even longer than the 5 minutes interval). But what if he records 5 minutes and his beach bum opponent records 7 minutes?
On the other hand, the general theory of relativity is still a theory: The theory remains valid until a single observation is found to contradict with the predictions of the theory. So far, the neutrinos have not disproved the theory, but who knows? Maybe they will someday...
Thank you truly for the enticing discussion :)
For the starting time, it's typical to have both programmers start a competition at the same moment, but for argument's sake we will say it: both programmers start programming as soon as an accurate clock strikes 12 (as a separate reference, it's placed in a separate region that's equidistant to both locations and the gravitational forces upon it are accounted for; the time intervals are not measured according to that clock however but with very accurate clocks placed near each of them). The time difference between the regions doesn't matter as we are judging based on time intervals and not time instants.
As for the correct code, in any contest we agree that the timing occurs only when the programmers submit a correct answer.
ZeRaW and Samer99 proposed interesting argumentative points: does "faster" signify the programmers' speed or the code's speed? But seeing that the main argument states the time taken by the programmers to finish coding, then we're talking about the programmers' speed (nice notation by the way ZeRaW). How about the oxygen deficiency and having both programmers subjected to same conditions? Well, other than their location, every other condition they're subjected to must be similar to have a correct experiment (in an experiment, only one factor can be altered to study its effect). But truly what about the oxygen flow in the programmers' brains? It is related to their locations and is affected by it, so the programmer living in the mountains may have this disadvantage. Touchè, Samer99.
GN90 gave a justifiable cause for the time difference, and it comes in accordance with Einstein's general theory of relativity. But is the time difference caused by this theory really 2 minutes? I didn't state where the mountains and the beach are located, so it might just reach 2 minutes, but then again it might not. ILIA_93 provided some calculations, but failed to do the calculations for the other programmer and considered that the speed of the beach programmer is that of light (nice joke, turning the beach-house programmer into a beach bum :D). In the case given, you're right. But what if the time recordings were inverted? To see who truly wins, we'll even specify that the beach's coastline is that of Indian Ocean and the mountain is the tip of Mount Everest. What happens now?
rahmu mentioned the neutrinos (honestly thank you for shedding the light on them), but until now we cannot accept the results as viable. Einstein's general theory of relativity has been justified (using accurate clocks on a water tower in 1962 and by observing the variations on the elliptical trajectories of the planets throughout the past forty years). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two conditions: 1) it has to accurately describe a large class of observations (derived from a model with few arbitrary elements), 2) it must yield accurate predictions concerning results of future conducted observations. Since Einstein's theory satisfies both conditions, then it is thus far valid. Sine the neutrinos don't (yet), a theory related to their nature cannot be derived (yet).
And while Newton's theory of gravitational forces contradict a bit with Einstein's general theory of relativity, we still use them because they're easier to use in calculations and the situations where the Newtonian theory is used has very small differences in its predictions than those derived by Einstein's theory. We always rely on the Maxwell equations for atoms (small scale), Newton's laws for real-sized objects on Earth, and Einstein's equations for planets and stars in the outer space (large scale). Even Newton's theory states that the gravitational forces to which the beach programmer is subjected to are larger than that subjected to the programmer living in the mountains. But only Einstein's theory mentions the influence on time: the closer an object is to Earth's center, the higher the gravitational force, so the light takes more energy to travel up to top, hence increasing the light's frequency and decreasing its period. So mountain man sees everything in slow motion, and his very unfortunate clock indicates so. In the proposed case, he loses big time (the 7 minutes interval is actually even longer than the 5 minutes interval). But what if he records 5 minutes and his beach bum opponent records 7 minutes?
On the other hand, the general theory of relativity is still a theory: The theory remains valid until a single observation is found to contradict with the predictions of the theory. So far, the neutrinos have not disproved the theory, but who knows? Maybe they will someday...
Thank you truly for the enticing discussion :)
