|
On December 12 2012 03:09 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:04 helvete wrote:On December 12 2012 01:47 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On December 12 2012 01:37 helvete wrote:On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote:On November 30 2012 00:41 aseq wrote: Hmm, them having to answer at the same time makes it rather impossible, it seems.
There is a variation to this problem where the gnomes can see all the hats except their own (no front or back watching). They're told to form a line, but have all the white and hats next to each other and all the red hats next to each other. They can't say anything at all (but have a strategy). How do they do that? + Show Spoiler + Line up "at-random", just so you have some order. Then first in line starts a new line. Each person in the old line then enters the new line as follows. If the new line consists entirely of 1 color, enter it at one end. If the new line has both color hats already, enter at the "split" between the two.
Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten? + Show Spoiler +Swim close to the edge of the lake. The wolf will be waiting for you. Swim very slowly towards the opposite side of the lake. When the wolf arrives at the point you're slowly swimming towards, do a 180 and swim full speed to the shore. The wolf won't get there in time to eat you. This doesn't work. The wolf has to run PI*(the lake's radius), to get from one side of the lake to the other. PI is less than 4, so he can always get from any point on the edge of the lake to any other point faster than you can swim there from the center. I don't think you got my solution. It has nothing to do with the center. + Show Spoiler +Swim to anywhere on the edge of the lake. The wolf will get there before you and will be waiting. Now SLOWLY swim towards the other side. As the wolf runs at full speed and you swim slowly he'll get there while you've only covered a tiny distance. You now reverse and swim at full speed. The wolf won't be able to cover the distance in the time it takes you to once again reach the shore. + Show Spoiler +"He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position"
The wolf doesn't run to your destination, as your method requires. He runs to the point on the shore closest to your current position. If you're swimming directly away from the wolf, however slowly you do so, that point will remain in the same place until you pass the center of the circle. Awww crap, stupid lazy wolf! brb gotta think..
|
Question - what does the wolf do if you're equidistant from the shores at multiple points? Let's say you're in a center, and the wolf is at the east (0 degrees). You swim due north (90 degrees), and the wolf is there before you are, so you swim directly back towards the center. When you hit the center, is he still at the same spot until you pass the center?
|
On December 11 2012 20:49 Neino wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 13:06 frogrubdown wrote:On December 11 2012 12:49 ziggurat wrote: I saw this many years ago, hopefully you find it interesting....
"Last night I went to a dinner party with my wife and four other couples (total of 10 people present). As people arrived, handshakes were exchanged. However, not everyone shook hands. Some did and some didn't. No one shook hands with his or her spouse, and no one shook hands with him or her self. After the party I asked all the others how many hands they shook, and to my surprise each person told me a different number.
The puzzle to solve is: how many hands did my wife shake?" Got it. + Show Spoiler +4. There are 9 possible numbers of hands shaken (0-8) for 9 possible shakers (10 minus you). The person that shakes hands with 8 must be married to the person that shakes hands with 0 because everyone outside of this couple in the group is shaken at least once (by the 8-shaker). Similarly, the 7-shaker must be married to the 1-shaker, since, from the prior sentence, we know that the 1-shaker was shaken only by the 8-shaker, and the 7-shaker must shake hands with everyone else except the 0-shaker and 1-shaker to get to 7. Similar reasoning applies to 6-shaker/2-shaker and 5-shaker/3-shaker. Only possibility left is 4. edit: Not sure how clear the above reasoning was. Maybe this will be better. + Show Spoiler +Every shaker position in {0,...,8} is occupied. The 8-shaker must shake hands with everyone not in spouse-group to reach 8. So everyone outside it has at least one, meaning the spouse is the only candidate for 0-shaker. The 7-shaker must shake hands with everyone not in spouse-group or 0-shaker, meaning everyone not in either of these spouse groups is at least a 2-shaker. So the 7-shaker spouse is the only candidate for 1-shaker. The 6-shaker must shake hands with everyone not in spouse-group or 0-shaker or 1-shaker (we already know the 1 person that shakes hands with this person), meaning everyone not in the first 3 spouse-groups shakes hands with at least 3 people. So the 6-shaker spouse is the only candidate for 2-shaker... that seems less clear if anything. I feel like I'm missing something here, but I just woke up so I got an excuse. How do you know the person telling the riddle isn't the person who shook hands with 8 people, and his wife shook hands with 0? I just missed how you determined which couple the story teller is There are 10 people but only 9 possible variants for the number of handshakes. That means that everyone has a different number of handshakes except YOU. So you just analyze the other 9 people. One more note is that your wife cant be a 8-shaker, because than everybody will have 1 shake and none will have 0 shakes. By that pattern she also cant be a 7,6,5-shaker. In the end you get all places for number of shakes filled in and there cant be anymore handshakes or the rules will be broken. Just count the number of shakes you and your wife got and you'll have a 4.
|
On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote:
Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten?
Ooh, I love evasion puzzles. Previous posters were on the right track, but not quite precise enough. The following works (apologies for the wordiness): + Show Spoiler +To make this easier to talk about, let's make the lake the unit circle -- you're at (0,0) and the wolf is at some arbitrary point on the circle, say (0,1). Previously posters correctly said that if we want to get out at (0,1) safely, we need to somehow arrange for the wolf to be at the opposite point, (0,-1) when we're close enough to the circle to make a beeline for safety without the wolf catching up. Other posters just didn't correctly see how close "close enough" is.
First, notice that if we swim around the circle of radius r, for r near 1 (we're near the edge of the lake), the wolf will always easily keep up with us, staying right at the point on the circle closest to us, since for every distance d we swim in a circle, the wolf runs pi*d (arc length), which is less than the 4d he could cover going at top speed. However, if we stay close to the middle of the lake and swim in tiny circles around the origin, the situation is reversed... If we swim in circles of radius r, for r near 0, our angular velocity increases without limit.
So if we're faster near the center but the wolf is faster near the edge, where's the breakpoint? Other than the fact that 4>pi, this is the only significance of the wolf running at 4 times our speed. If we swim around the circle r=1/4 (a quarter of the way out to the edge), suppose we swim an arc of length theta. Then the distance we cover is s=r*theta=theta/4, so in the same time the wolf can cover 4 times that distance, or exactly theta distance. But the wolf is out at r=1, so for him, arc length s=r*theta=theta, and we see that you and the wolf cover exactly the same arc length.
Now we're nearly done. Anywhere inside the circle r=1/4, we can outpace the wolf's angular velocity, but anywhere outside, he can outpace ours. To get the wolf around to the opposite point, swim out to just slightly under radius 1/4 (within an arbitrarily small but nonzero distance). Start swimming in circles. Every time we go around the circle, the wolf lags behind us a little bit more, so keep doing this until he's half a circle behind. Depending on how close to 1/4 you are, this will take more or fewer trips around the circle, but our angular velocity is always higher so it's clear this happens eventually.
Now we're in the desired situation. The wolf is at (0,-1) opposite our exit point, and we're at (0,1/4), a quarter of the way there. Now stop circling and head to safety. We have to cover distance 3/4, so in that time the wolf can cover distance 3. But he's half a circle away -- he has to cover distance pi, which is more than the 3 he can manage at top speed. Huzzah!
+ Show Spoiler [tldr] +Our angular velocity is higher than the wolf's if and only if we're less than a quarter of the way out from the center of the lake. Swim out slightly less than a quarter of the way and start circling. The wolf will gradually lag behind our position more and more -- when he's on the far point of the lake opposite our position, head straight for the closest point on the bank; you'll make it because 3<pi<4.
Edit: Sandster, that's correct. At any given time, draw a line from the center of the lake through your current position. The wolf heads towards where that line hits the edge of the lake, which doesn't change if you're moving directly towards or away from him without passing the center of the lake.
|
On December 12 2012 03:47 Iranon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote:
Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten? Ooh, I love evasion puzzles. Previous posters were on the right track, but not quite precise enough. The following works (apologies for the wordiness): + Show Spoiler +To make this easier to talk about, let's make the lake the unit circle -- you're at (0,0) and the wolf is at some arbitrary point on the circle, say (0,1). Previously posters correctly said that if we want to get out at (0,1) safely, we need to somehow arrange for the wolf to be at the opposite point, (0,-1) when we're close enough to the circle to make a beeline for safety without the wolf catching up. Other posters just didn't correctly see how close "close enough" is.
First, notice that if we swim around the circle of radius r, for r near 1 (we're near the edge of the lake), the wolf will always easily keep up with us, staying right at the point on the circle closest to us, since for every distance d we swim in a circle, the wolf runs pi*d (arc length), which is less than the 4d he could cover going at top speed. However, if we stay close to the middle of the lake and swim in tiny circles around the origin, the situation is reversed... If we swim in circles of radius r, for r near 0, our angular velocity increases without limit.
So if we're faster near the center but the wolf is faster near the edge, where's the breakpoint? Other than the fact that 4>pi, this is the only significance of the wolf running at 4 times our speed. If we swim around the circle r=1/4 (a quarter of the way out to the edge), suppose we swim an arc of length theta. Then the distance we cover is s=r*theta=theta/4, so in the same time the wolf can cover 4 times that distance, or exactly theta distance. But the wolf is out at r=1, so for him, arc length s=r*theta=theta, and we see that you and the wolf cover exactly the same arc length.
Now we're nearly done. Anywhere inside the circle r=1/4, we can outpace the wolf's angular velocity, but anywhere outside, he can outpace ours. To get the wolf around to the opposite point, swim out to just slightly under radius 1/4 (within an arbitrarily small but nonzero distance). Start swimming in circles. Every time we go around the circle, the wolf lags behind us a little bit more, so keep doing this until he's half a circle behind. Depending on how close to 1/4 you are, this will take more or fewer trips around the circle, but our angular velocity is always higher so it's clear this happens eventually.
Now we're in the desired situation. The wolf is at (0,-1) opposite our exit point, and we're at (0,1/4), a quarter of the way there. Now stop circling and head to safety. We have to cover distance 3/4, so in that time the wolf can cover distance 3. But he's half a circle away -- he has to cover distance pi, which is more than the 3 he can manage at top speed. Huzzah! + Show Spoiler [tldr] +Our angular velocity is higher than the wolf's if and only if we're less than a quarter of the way out from the center of the lake. Swim out slightly less than a quarter of the way and start circling. The wolf will gradually lag behind our position more and more -- when he's on the far point of the lake opposite our position, head straight for the closest point on the bank; you'll make it because 3<pi<4. Edit: Sandster, that's correct. At any given time, draw a line from the center of the lake through your current position. The wolf heads towards where that line hits the edge of the lake, which doesn't change if you're moving directly towards or away from him without passing the center of the lake. I don't know what wasn't precise enough for you. My answer is as correct as yours but uses actual units for readability. The other correct answer was the same unitless form as yours but arrived at the same answer without being nearly as wordy. I give you extra credit for using "angular velocity", but I think a correct answer is a correct answer :-P.
+ Show Spoiler +Edit: My point is, the riddle doesn't ask for a mathematically precise model of the problem, it asks how you get out of the lake. There are literally an infinite number of correct answers, because you have greater angular velocity than the wolf at an infinite number of points that are less than PI from the edge of the lake, the riddle doesn't give bonus points for precision, just for not getting eaten by a hungry canid.
|
^ Fair enough, I think I mistook your earlier post to be the wrong one you quoted from someone else. Looking more carefully at the last page, your solution is the same idea and that works just as well. I hadn't double-checked the numbers the first time I read it, and it's not obvious from the way you wrote it why 39 is a "safe" value (just over 3/4 of the radius away from the shore). Redbluegreen posted more or less the same thing as I did but in confusing words ("slightly circular", "relative speed").
|
On December 12 2012 05:58 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 03:47 Iranon wrote:On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote:
Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten? Ooh, I love evasion puzzles. Previous posters were on the right track, but not quite precise enough. The following works (apologies for the wordiness): + Show Spoiler +To make this easier to talk about, let's make the lake the unit circle -- you're at (0,0) and the wolf is at some arbitrary point on the circle, say (0,1). Previously posters correctly said that if we want to get out at (0,1) safely, we need to somehow arrange for the wolf to be at the opposite point, (0,-1) when we're close enough to the circle to make a beeline for safety without the wolf catching up. Other posters just didn't correctly see how close "close enough" is.
First, notice that if we swim around the circle of radius r, for r near 1 (we're near the edge of the lake), the wolf will always easily keep up with us, staying right at the point on the circle closest to us, since for every distance d we swim in a circle, the wolf runs pi*d (arc length), which is less than the 4d he could cover going at top speed. However, if we stay close to the middle of the lake and swim in tiny circles around the origin, the situation is reversed... If we swim in circles of radius r, for r near 0, our angular velocity increases without limit.
So if we're faster near the center but the wolf is faster near the edge, where's the breakpoint? Other than the fact that 4>pi, this is the only significance of the wolf running at 4 times our speed. If we swim around the circle r=1/4 (a quarter of the way out to the edge), suppose we swim an arc of length theta. Then the distance we cover is s=r*theta=theta/4, so in the same time the wolf can cover 4 times that distance, or exactly theta distance. But the wolf is out at r=1, so for him, arc length s=r*theta=theta, and we see that you and the wolf cover exactly the same arc length.
Now we're nearly done. Anywhere inside the circle r=1/4, we can outpace the wolf's angular velocity, but anywhere outside, he can outpace ours. To get the wolf around to the opposite point, swim out to just slightly under radius 1/4 (within an arbitrarily small but nonzero distance). Start swimming in circles. Every time we go around the circle, the wolf lags behind us a little bit more, so keep doing this until he's half a circle behind. Depending on how close to 1/4 you are, this will take more or fewer trips around the circle, but our angular velocity is always higher so it's clear this happens eventually.
Now we're in the desired situation. The wolf is at (0,-1) opposite our exit point, and we're at (0,1/4), a quarter of the way there. Now stop circling and head to safety. We have to cover distance 3/4, so in that time the wolf can cover distance 3. But he's half a circle away -- he has to cover distance pi, which is more than the 3 he can manage at top speed. Huzzah! + Show Spoiler [tldr] +Our angular velocity is higher than the wolf's if and only if we're less than a quarter of the way out from the center of the lake. Swim out slightly less than a quarter of the way and start circling. The wolf will gradually lag behind our position more and more -- when he's on the far point of the lake opposite our position, head straight for the closest point on the bank; you'll make it because 3<pi<4. Edit: Sandster, that's correct. At any given time, draw a line from the center of the lake through your current position. The wolf heads towards where that line hits the edge of the lake, which doesn't change if you're moving directly towards or away from him without passing the center of the lake. I don't know what wasn't precise enough for you. My answer is as correct as yours but uses actual units for readability. The other correct answer was the same unitless form as yours but arrived at the same answer without being nearly as wordy. I give you extra credit for using "angular velocity", but I think a correct answer is a correct answer :-P. + Show Spoiler +Edit: My point is, the riddle doesn't ask for a mathematically precise model of the problem, it asks how you get out of the lake. There are literally an infinite number of correct answers, because you have greater angular velocity than the wolf at an infinite number of points that are less than PI from the edge of the lake, the riddle doesn't give bonus points for precision, just for not getting eaten by a hungry canid.
You could also swim under water as well. The wolf won't see you and then you could pop up and sneak off.
You could also call the eagles to rescue you.
You could also use a square/diamond instead of a circle and get there quicker.
EDIT: I hope this doesn't come across as sarcastic because it isn't!
|
On April 18 2012 23:02 kochanfe wrote: You have a jug that holds five gallons, and a jug that holds three gallons. You have no other containers, and there are no markings on the jugs. You need to obtain exactly seven gallons of water from a faucet. How can you do it?
Second Problem: You need exactly four gallons. How do you do it?
I can't be the only one who thought of + Show Spoiler + Weighing the water? This seems to not break any of the rules of the riddle.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
I think the spirit of the riddle is to solve it only with what you're told you have.
Wasn't the jug riddle in a Die Hard movie?
|
On December 12 2012 07:33 Rebornlife wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 23:02 kochanfe wrote: You have a jug that holds five gallons, and a jug that holds three gallons. You have no other containers, and there are no markings on the jugs. You need to obtain exactly seven gallons of water from a faucet. How can you do it?
Second Problem: You need exactly four gallons. How do you do it? I can't be the only one who thought of + Show Spoiler + Weighing the water? This seems to not break any of the rules of the riddle.
5 gallons + 3 gallons: + Show Spoiler + Fill up the 5 gallon one Pour 3 gallons into the 3 gallon tank Empty 3 gallon tank Pour remaining 2 gallons from 5 gallon tank into 3 gallon one Fill up 5 gallon tank
You will now have a full 5 gallon tank + a 3 gallon tank with 2 gallons...
EZPZ
|
For 4 gallons:
+ Show Spoiler + Fill 5 Gallon Pour into three gallons in 3-gallon, so two gallons are remaining in the 5-gallon. Empty the 3-gallon, and then pour the two gallons from the 5-gallon into the 3-gallon. Fill the 5-gallon. Pour one gallon into the 3-gallon, making the 3-gallon full. There are four gallons left in the 5-gallon.
|
On December 12 2012 08:41 ShoreT wrote:For 4 gallons: + Show Spoiler + Fill 5 Gallon Pour into three gallons in 3-gallon, so two gallons are remaining in the 5-gallon. Empty the 3-gallon, and then pour the two gallons from the 5-gallon into the 3-gallon. Fill the 5-gallon. Pour one gallon into the 3-gallon, making the 3-gallon full. There are four gallons left in the 5-gallon.
+ Show Spoiler + Lol I did this a longer way but got the same thing. Fill the 3 gallon tank, pour into the 5 gallon tank. Fill the 3 gallon tank again, pour 2 gallons into the 5 gallon tank (1 gallon left in 3 gallon tank). Empty 5 gallon tank. Pour 1 gallon from 3 gallon tank into 5 gallon tank. Fill 3 gallon tank. 4 gallons.
My way is much more round about >.> same answer though!
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote: Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten?
There is a harder challenge: The wolf runs 4.5 times faster than you can swim with everything else being the same. How do you reach the shore?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Another challenge:
An silk road merchantman needs to buy supplies for his trade caravan and has a circular golden necklace with 79 links. The merchant isn't sure how much he will be spending and needs to be as flexible as possible in payment. He wants to be able to pay with any number of links between 1 and 79. Before heading to the store, the merchant can get his companion to cut some links in the gold chain, but will have to give up a foot of silk for each cut. How many feets of silk does the merchant does the merchant have to give to his friend?
|
On December 12 2012 09:12 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote: Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten? There is a harder challenge: The wolf runs 4.5 times faster than you can swim with everything else being the same. How do you reach the shore?
Yikes, the harder version is too much for me, but I've got an idea for the 4x challenge
+ Show Spoiler + If you imagine the pond has radius 'x', then the wolf has to run pi*x units to get to the opposite side. If you are swimming in a circle of radius x/4 or less from the center of the pond, then for you the distance to travel from one side to the other is less than 25% of the amount the wolf has to travel, so you can change angles faster than it.
So therefore if you swim in a circle at a radius a little less than x/4 for long enough, you'll end up across from the wolf. At this point, it's a little over 3/4*x for you to get to the center, whereas the wolf will need to travel pi*x. Even if he is going 4 times faster than you, he'll only make it 3*x of the way to where you are landing, so he won't make it in time.
Now if he's going 4.5 times your speed, this won't work. What a conundrum...
Edit: My instinct is that you would do something similar to what I posted to start, then spiral towards the pond edge to escape, but I have no idea how to show whether that would be better or how much better it would be.
|
Here's one I just made up. I was hunting around for interesting number-theoretic coincidences, so I'm not sure this will actually make a good puzzle, but I think it's neat... Also I'll be pretty impressed if people come up with a solution, since unlike most of the rest of this thread, I doubt you can find a solution via 30 seconds of Google-fu.
Take a piece of graph paper, color in a bunch of non-overlapping squares of varying sizes, and keep track of the total area (number of grid sections) you just covered. For example, you might color in a 2x2 square, three 5x5 squares, a 6x6 square, and a 10x10 square, for a total area of 4+3*25+36+100=215.
If you're not allowed to use squares of size 1, then clearly some total areas will be impossible to achieve. For example... + Show Spoiler +Total area 1,2,3: obviously impossible Total area 4: one 2x2 Total area 5,6,7: also obviously impossible Total area 8: two 2x2s Total area 9: one 3x3 Total area 10,11: impossible, slightly less obvious Total area 12: three 2x2s Total area 13: one 2x2 and one 3x3 Total area 14: impossible, slightly still less obvious ...and so on...
If I give you a specified total volume to try and cover, like 797, it's pretty difficult to decide whether or not this is possible without writing a program to do it for you. It turns out to be possible (two 2x2s, three 3x3s, three 4x4s, four 6x6s, three 7x7s, a 9x9, a 10x10, and two 11x11s do the trick).
Question: Are there infinitely many "impossible" areas, or will we eventually reach a point where every total area from there on can be covered exactly by drawing a bunch of non-overlapping squares? If the latter, find this point.
Reworded in terms of pure numbers: find the largest number that cannot be represented as a sum of squares other than 1, or explain why no such number exists. Once you understand things the right way, you can solve this by hand pretty quickly. (Note: there's a ton of information out there about representing numbers as a sum of squares, but excluding the square 1 makes this somewhat tricky. Obviously everything can be represented as a sum of squares if you allow using 1, so the sum-of-squares problem typically includes 1 but restricts the number of squares you're allowed to use. I'm excluding 1 but letting you use as many squares as you want.)
Bonus 1: (Easier) What if you're allowed to let the squares overlap? So for example, 7 is now possible if you take two 2x2s and have them intersect at a corner...
Bonus 2: (Harder) How does the answer change if instead of using two-dimensional squares and looking for the last "impossible" area, use three-dimensional cubes and look for the last "impossible" volume?
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On December 12 2012 09:57 BajaBlood wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 09:12 TanGeng wrote:On December 11 2012 21:39 eluv wrote: Not sure if its been posted, but here's one that's less lateral/logical thinking, and more geometry. Suppose you are at the center of a perfectly circular lake. On the edge of the lake is a wolf, who can run four times faster than you can swim. However, you can run on land faster than the wolf, so that if you can reach the bank at a point where the wolf is not already located, you will get away. He will always run towards the point on the shore closest to your current position, with instantaneous (i.e. continuous) reactions to your movement. Assuming you can both change direction in no time, how do you reach the bank without being eaten? There is a harder challenge: The wolf runs 4.5 times faster than you can swim with everything else being the same. How do you reach the shore? Yikes, the harder version is too much for me, but I've got an idea for the 4x challenge + Show Spoiler + If you imagine the pond has radius 'x', then the wolf has to run pi*x units to get to the opposite side. If you are swimming in a circle of radius x/4 or less from the center of the pond, then for you the distance to travel from one side to the other is less than 25% of the amount the wolf has to travel, so you can change angles faster than it.
So therefore if you swim in a circle at a radius a little less than x/4 for long enough, you'll end up across from the wolf. At this point, it's a little over 3/4*x for you to get to the center, whereas the wolf will need to travel pi*x. Even if he is going 4 times faster than you, he'll only make it 3*x of the way to where you are landing, so he won't make it in time.
Now if he's going 4.5 times your speed, this won't work. What a conundrum...
Edit: My instinct is that you would do something similar to what I posted to start, then spiral towards the pond edge to escape, but I have no idea how to show whether that would be better or how much better it would be.
While I'm too lazy to do the calculation... + Show Spoiler +I think you should be able to leave the origin of the circle in a zig-zag type pattern like so (W= wolf, o = you, c = center) . ( W( o ( .
. ( ( c W ( o .
. ( ( c ( o W.
. ( ( c o W( . and so on until you reach the required distance out to apply the solution found for the 4 case
|
no idea how that got posted here....
|
On December 12 2012 09:36 TanGeng wrote: Another challenge:
An silk road merchantman needs to buy supplies for his trade caravan and has a circular golden necklace with 79 links. The merchant isn't sure how much he will be spending and needs to be as flexible as possible in payment. He wants to be able to pay with any number of links between 1 and 79. Before heading to the store, the merchant can get his companion to cut some links in the gold chain, but will have to give up a foot of silk for each cut. How many feets of silk does the merchant does the merchant have to give to his friend?
Not sure if this is optimal, but eleven is sufficient. + Show Spoiler +Using payments of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, up to 2^n, you can make any number up to 2^(n+1)-1. So to get up to 79, the merchant can cut the chain up into pieces of length (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32), (1, 2, 4, 8), and 1 link left over. That's 79 total, cutting the circular chain into 11 pieces, so the optimal solution is at most 11.
Any price up to 63 can be covered with some combination of the first set of pieces listed above. Any price between 64 and 78 can be covered by the entire first set plus some combination of the second set. And 79 is obviously all 11 pieces.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 12 2012 10:18 Iranon wrote: Question: Are there infinitely many "impossible" areas, or will we eventually reach a point where every total area from there on can be covered exactly by drawing a bunch of non-overlapping squares? If the latter, find this point.
+ Show Spoiler + 23 use modulo 4(smallest 2x2 square). 3x3 is equivalent to 1. The biggest "impossible" is therefore the one that requires 3 3x3 squares to complete, and that happens at 27.
Bonus 1: (Easier) What if you're allowed to let the squares overlap? So for example, 7 is now possible if you take two 2x2s and have them intersect at a corner... + Show Spoiler + 6
use modulo 3 instead of modulo 4 - and the 2x2 can be used as 3 (equivalent to 0) or 4 (equivalent to 1).
modulo 1 is covered at 4 (one 2x2) module 2 is covered at 8 (two 2x2) modulo 3 is covered at 9 (one 3x3)
last one to not be covered is at 6.
|
|
|
|