- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Riddles — Page 7
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
If I lived in a pokemon world, I would NOT kill myself, though... I would EAT THEM! I mean, they eat meat on the pokemon universe, right? And there are no animals there, only pokemons... So they eat pokemons!
But there must be some animals, other wise how would they call Pikachu a "mouse/electric" type Pokemon.
How would they now what a mouse was?
- Time
- Post link
DanielB: nice answer... but the dots are supposed to have no size at all.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
You only need 3 lines with the dots question:
So I guess to make the other answer correct, you have to specify that the lines must bisect the circles into halves when they cross through them. Then the four line solution will work.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
if you draw the lines far enough out, then their 'slope' will be essentially nothing and the 3 lines would appear parallel to the naked eye.So im gonna go with DanielB's solution working for 3 lines, but the riddle stats using only 4 lines...so as an answer to that, DanielB is one line short, therefore his answer doesnt work
-Darth Simon
*edited cause i cant spell
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin
0100111001101001011011100110101001100001
*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Physically impossible, mtahematically possible.
Agreed, as is the 3 parallel lines that intersect. Hell mathematically i can draw one line that passes through all 9 dots...im just that good
-Darth Simon
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin
0100111001101001011011100110101001100001
*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Simon
Agreed, as is the 3 parallel lines that intersect. Hell mathematically i can draw one line that passes through all 9 dots...im just that good
Don't let us stop you.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
How? Having the line going around the world?
pretty much, it would be similar to the concept/theory that with a powerful enough laser you can have it curve around the surface of the earth.
"Anakin, You're father I am" - Yoda
"No. No. That's not true! That's impossible!" - Anakin
0100111001101001011011100110101001100001
*touchy people disclaimer*
some or all of the above comments are partially exaggerated to convey a point, none of the comments are meant as personal attacks on anyone mentioned or reference in the above post
- Time
- Post link
QuoteEven if the lines are thicker than the dots you can still achieve the answer I provided. That was simply the best way of drawing it on a PC.
Originally posted by: ricarleite
DanielB: nice answer... but the dots are supposed to have no size at all.
QuoteNo it wouldn't:
Originally posted by: Bossk
So I guess to make the other answer correct, you have to specify that the lines must bisect the circles into halves when they cross through them. Then the four line solution will work.
Even if you extend the left line through the top-left dot, you'll be dissecting that dot into 4 pieces, not two equal halves. You could argue that that single line dissects it into equal halves, but then the other two lines going into it are not, and it would still fail your specifications.
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielBQuote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
DanielB: nice answer... but the dots are supposed to have no size at all.
Even if the lines are thicker than the dots you can still achieve the answer I provided. That was simply the best way of drawing it on a PC.
Not really. The three dots are parallel to each other. If the dots have no width, then how can the line make a "turn" like that? Two paralel lines never cross each other... (i'm not sure i was completly clear now)
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Even if you extend the left line through the top-left dot, you'll be dissecting that dot into 4 pieces, not two equal halves. You could argue that that single line dissects it into equal halves, but then the other two lines going into it are not, and it would still fail your specifications.
What I was trying to say, obviously with no effect, was that each line, as it passes through the dot bisects it into two equal halves. Not some combination of lines. Just each one.
--Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
-------------------------
Kevin A
Webmaster/Primary Cynic
kapgar.typepad.com
kapgar.com
- Time
- Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: DanielB
Because, even if the dots are specks, you can still use the thickness of your pencil to make the line go over the specks while soaping down in a big Z. You have to remember this question is not based on dots that are specks and have no width, it's based on practical dots and a practical pencil; both of which do have width. I have drawn the three line solution on paper before, so I know it is a perfectly practical solution.
Yes, but it's not mathematically accurate.
- Time
- Post link
QuoteIt is mathematical, but a practical maths not often taught in schools, etc. For instance, if I pile one pile of dirt on top of another pile of dirt I end up with one pile of dirt. That is practical. And it shows:
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Yes, but it's not mathematically accurate.
1 pile of dirt + 1 pile of dirt = 1 pile of dirt.
You would not believe how many people will say "but mathematically there's twice as much dirt"! They're not even close to the practicality. A pile of dirt is an arbitrary mass. No one said the two piles of dirt were of equal volume in the first place; and either way when they are combined they form one pile of dirt, not two. You cannot add two piles of dirt together and end up with twp piles of dirt, because it is in adding them together that they form one, by the very definition of the question. The dots question are the same.
If you ask someone to put pen to paper and draw no more than 4 straight connected lines that connect all the dots together; you are specifying a practical question, for which there is a practical answer - not a purely mathematical one. You can't show they're wrong mathematically if they provide my solution, if you say "You need FOUR lines" they can just draw a 4th line that goes back to another dot. Then their solution would be 4 lines, but with an unnecessary line.
If you ever saw a product which contains more than 100% in total of the ingredients, would you think there was an error involved? Let me share this with you. If you mix 500ml of vodka with 500ml of water, you do not get 1kg of liquid. It's actually less than 950ml of fluid. What are you going to do about that? Complain that it's not mathematical? That there was 500ml of water, and 500ml of vodka and just because you've changed their location their weight should not have changed? Ask where the other 50ml went to?
If I packaged a product that was made of equal portions of vodka and water, and listed my ingredients with percentages, then on the packaging it would read: Contains: 53% vodka and 53% water. Again this is practical, it may not be mathematical but it is practical, accurate and demonstrable under real world conditions. It would, in fact, be illegal for me to write 50% for each of vodka and water. Percentages must be accurate, if in 1kg of my product there is 530ml of water, then my product (according to its weight) contains 53% water, I cannot write 50%, because it does not contain 500ml of water to the kg, it contains 530ml of water to the kg. The same goes for the vodka.
Now I could intend instead to trick the consumer by writing only one percentage, thus: Contains: 53% vodka and water. People would then assume that it is 47% water. But it's not. It is however 53% vodka - or 530ml, which is what my claim is.
- Time
- Post link
Now, how is it possible for you to mix 500ml of vodka with 500ml of water and end up with 950ml? There's a chemical reaction that liberates steam? The MASS could be either more than 1kg, or less than 1kg, because vodka's less or more dense then water (I don't know) but the VOLUME cannot change like that...
- Time
- Post link
That post explains mixing ethanol and water to produce vodka creates a more dense liquid. Now I've taken it a step further, because what most people do when they drink vodka is dilute it into some sort of water-based beverage. They might be diluting it with apple juice to take shots, for instance. In that case they might start by half-filling the shot glass with vodka, and then adding the juice until it is full. They believe they are adding as much juice as vodka, but they're not. All things equal, if they originally filled the glass to exactly half way with vodka and then used condensed apple juice to fill the rest of the glass, then in their shot glass is more than half a shot glass of apple juice.
If you poured equal portions of vodka and water, 500ml each into a container you would have 941ml of fluid in that container.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
I don't drink, so I wouldn't know, of course...
- Time
- Post link
edit: although I don't drink vodka.
- Time
- Post link
QuoteHowever, presumably, you drink water - that's one of the two.
Originally posted by: Warbler
edit: although I don't drink vodka.
Where are we up to with a new riddle anyway?