FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » brain teasers

   
Author Topic: brain teasers
snow
Member
Member # 5804

 - posted      Profile for snow   Email snow         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm quite bored, so im asking for all the clever folk out there to contribute some brain teasers/random questions about math, physics, logic puzzels, anything.

First I'll contribute my own (no cheating by looking up the answers)

1. If you have a really big box of spherical marbles, whats the largest possible percentage of the space the marbles could take up?

2. Consider a soccer ball shape (truncated icosahedron), what are the angles between the pentagonal-hexagonal intersections and between the hexagonal-hexagonal intersectional, and what is the volume in terms of a unit side length.

3. Imagine there is a prize behind one of three doors, and you choose one door. Afterwards, the game show host reveals one of the doors you did not choose, it is empty. He gives you the option to change doors. Should you switch or stay with the door you orginally choose, or does it even matter?

Enjoy, Id like to see some good ones myself.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
3) Switch

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
snow
Member
Member # 5804

 - posted      Profile for snow   Email snow         Edit/Delete Post 
yea, probably everyone here has heard of the third one, if they've read the thread that had it in the past.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know number three... [Frown]
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xnera
Member
Member # 187

 - posted      Profile for xnera   Email xnera         Edit/Delete Post 
You asked for it. Solve this:

quote:


  1. There are five houses.
  2. Each house has its own unique color.
  3. All house owners are of different nationalities.
  4. They all have different pets.
  5. They all drink different drinks.
  6. They all smoke different cigarettes.
  7. The Englishman lives in the red house.
  8. The Swede has a dog.
  9. The Dane drinks tea.
  10. The green house is on the left side of the white house.
  11. In the green house they drink coffee.
  12. The man who smokes Pall Mall has birds.
  13. In the yellow house they smoke Dunhill.
  14. In the middle house they drink milk.
  15. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
  16. The man who smokes Blend lives in the house next to the house with cats.
  17. In the house next to the house where they have a horse, they smoke Dunhill.
  18. The man who smokes Blue Master drinks beer.
  19. The German smokes Prince.
  20. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
  21. They drink water in the house that lays next to the house where they smoke Blend.
So, who owns the zebra?



Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, you should only switch if the host KNEW which ones were empty. If he chose at random, and happened to open an empty one, then it doesn't matter whether you switch or not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragon
Member
Member # 3670

 - posted      Profile for Dragon   Email Dragon         Edit/Delete Post 
We've been having fun with these lately...

Fill in the rest of the sequence:

1) O T T F F

2) J F M

3) S M H

Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kaydubb
New Member
Member # 5953

 - posted      Profile for kaydubb   Email kaydubb         Edit/Delete Post 
My guess for the houses/pets/cigarettes etc puzzle is that the German has the zebra. However, I think my logic/matrix skills are lacking because I ended up with some people in houses with incorrect drinks/pets..
Posts: 3 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xnera
Member
Member # 187

 - posted      Profile for xnera   Email xnera         Edit/Delete Post 
Dragon:

1) S S E N T
2) A M J J A S O N D
3) D W M Y

Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
butterfly
Member
Member # 5898

 - posted      Profile for butterfly   Email butterfly         Edit/Delete Post 
The German has the zebra?
Posts: 91 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
xnera
Member
Member # 187

 - posted      Profile for xnera   Email xnera         Edit/Delete Post 
Yup, the German has the zebra. [Smile]

I got this logic puzzle five years ago on a particular slow day at work, so out of boredom I wrote a two-and-a-half page proof. Yeah, I was really, really bored.

Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you have a really big box of spherical marbles, whats the largest possible percentage of the space the marbles could take up?
Er... I believe this question needs a little clarification. There are a couple of possible scenarios. Two equivalent cases would be a box of finite size with infinitely small marbles or marbles of finite size with an infinitely large box. In either case, of course, the number of marbles is infinite. But neither of these correspond to a real-world model (unless we can consider the universe to be an infinitely large box). Are the marbles and/or the box of finite size? And, if so, what model of the universe are you using? For example, string theory rules out point particles; everything must be bigger than the Planck Length. And are we assuming that all of the marbles are the same size? And are they constructed of a rigid material?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
saxon -- a hint: the question isn't what's the highest number, its what's the highest percentage.

Approached from there, its not too hard to solve (I'm pretty sure I can prove it over the general category of finite boxes, but not necessarily for a single arbitrary box, though that wouldn't take much more reasoning, I just haven't gone through that reasoning yet).

Also, I think its reasonable to assume that, given we are presented with physical objects to work with (marbles and boxes), we are working finitely, and that spheres and points are different constructs in the geometry, a sphere necessarily having 3 dimensions to a point's none, the point being merely the limit of a sphere as it approaches radius zero, yet not a member of the set of spheres.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Point taken on spheres vs. points. And maybe I'm just approaching this too much like an engineer (on an engineering exam if you see "really big box" you are usually meant to read it as "infinitely big box"). I'm pretty sure that if you can make the marbles inconsequentially small compared to the size of the box, epsilon approaches zero (where epsilon is the amount of leftover space in the box). Additionally, if you can make the marbles of different sizes, or if the marbles are squishy, that changes things as well, wouldn't you say?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, no squishy marbles, and marbles are all the same size. Otherwise, yes, one can make the volume filled arbitrarily approach the volume of the box. However, think again on the idea of just making them smaller to fill up space. It may appear that they fill up space if you look at a mass of them, but consider how much empty space is necessitated by inability of two marbles to occupy the same space.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
As a simple exercise, consider a (cubic) box with one marble in it, marble diameter equal to box side-length. Then consider the same box with 8 marbles in it (perfectly packed and as large as possible, so marble diameter equal to one half box side-length), and notice what happens to the space filled by the marbles in the second situation compared to the first. Then notice that you can generalize very easily to all numbers of marbles in powers of four (consider each marble to be in an imaginary box and divide it as before), and also quite easily to any set of marbles that perfectly fills the box.

Then just prove that any set of marbles, of a number which can be packed perfectly into a cube, which can be packed in a box can be packed perfectly into a cube of equal or lesser volume to the (not necessarily cubic) box, and you're nearly done.

I leave the final steps as an exercise for the reader [Wink] .

[ December 22, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
And if you haven't guessed, there's a joke hidden in the above which you will only get if you do at least part of the derivation [Smile] .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
snow
Member
Member # 5804

 - posted      Profile for snow   Email snow         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, fugu has the right idea, sort of, but the equivelent unit-cell for the best packing ratio isn't cubic. The answer you get with a cubic packing is far from optimal.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nato
Member
Member # 1448

 - posted      Profile for Nato   Email Nato         Edit/Delete Post 
Would the most efficient use of box space be to stack marbles perfectly on top of one another?

I'm not sure how to go about doing it, but it seems like it would be better to stack them so that each marble would lay with its center above the spot exactly between marbles on the layer below.
code:
 ()
()()

Edit: snow had to go and steal my fire while I was still writing my post. Alas!

[ December 22, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]

Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
I knew my materials science class would come in handy some day.

You're right, changing the size of the box relative to the size of the marbles doesn't change the percentage. Assuming an infinitely large box, you'll get the most efficient pack using either a hexagonal close pack or a cubic close pack, but the efficiency is the same either way. (The infinitely large box makes it so we don't have to worry about fractional balls around the periphery of the box.) So, assuming the balls are rigid and of a uniform size, the best packing efficiency is approximately 74%. Want the derivation?

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Happy Camper
Member
Member # 5076

 - posted      Profile for Happy Camper   Email Happy Camper         Edit/Delete Post 
1. is you basic n value derivation, which I actually did at work a little while back, and I know for sure it's actually listed in one of my textbooks, but I can't for the life of me remember the answer. Basic 3 dimensional geometry of a parallelapippet (or however the heck that is spelled. The other two. well number 2 I don't know, nor do I really care to, I'd need a lot more time than I'm willing to put into this thing, and number 3 is obviously to switch as several folks have already pointed out.

-mike

Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
Saxon, what about face centered cubic? How does that compare to hexagonal close packed or are they the same thing with different terminology?
http://www.okstate.edu/jgelder/fcc.gif

AJ

[ December 22, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
cool pictures
http://www.uncp.edu/home/mcclurem/lattice/hcp.htm

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
I think face-centered cubic is the other term for cubic close pack, and I think they have the same packing efficiency.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
Could I pound the marbles into a fine powder before putting them in the box?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
I'd never heard the terms face-centered-cubic, cubic close pack, or hexagonal close pack, but if the pictures at Banna's links are accurate, they do indeed have the exact same packing efficiency. Saxon is correct -- it's approximately 74% (74.048048969306). It's equivalent to pi x sqrt(2) / 6.

--Pop

Ok, another teaser which is sort of a case-specific example of the above. You have a rectangle which measures 2 inches x 1,000 inches. How many non-overlapping circles of diameter 1 can you fit in the box?

Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Pop, those terms come from chemistry and are used to describe crystal structures.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
How many non-overlapping circles of diameter 1 can you fit in the box?
1 what?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dragon
Member
Member # 3670

 - posted      Profile for Dragon   Email Dragon         Edit/Delete Post 
good job xenra!
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
One inch, you dweeb. You're just pointing out my faults -- like that's a feat.... *smile*
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, in that case you can fit 2000, unless this is some sort of trick question. You can't fit more than two rows, even if you stagger them. If you do stagger them, you actually can only fit 1999. So the best fit is just lining them up in squares.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Nope. You can fit more than 2,000. You just need to figure out how.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Heh, here's a "hint": think of dice, and the number five.

Note, I haven't even bothered to calculate the answer for my hint, but it should at least start someone thinking on the right track even if its wrong [Smile] .

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
snow
Member
Member # 5804

 - posted      Profile for snow   Email snow         Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Saxon, i dont see any way to fit more then 2000. If the answer is something like, chop them all up into nice little bits and fit them in that way, ill be pissed.
And fugu, I believe you are mistaken, that configuration doesnt seem to work as well as just a plain square packing. only about 1730.

Posts: 12 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juliette
Member
Member # 5484

 - posted      Profile for Juliette   Email Juliette         Edit/Delete Post 
(saxon here)

The densest possible configuration is a hexagonal configuration. However, if we are limited to whole circles that must all be contained within the rectangle, a hexagonal configuration allows at most two rows. A square configuration clearly allows two rows of 1000 circles. The total height of the two rows will be 2d = 4r, where r is the radius of the circle and d is the diameter, or 2 inches. In the hexagonal configuration we get one row of 1000 and one row of 999. The total height of the two rows is r * sqrt(3), or approximately 1.73 inches. Clearly, there is no more room for any more circles above that row (adding another row in hexagonal configuration requires a total height of about 3.46 inches).

The only way you can fit in more circles is if you allow fractional circles, or circles of different sizes.

[Edit: Excuse me, the actual total height of two staggered rows is (r * sqrt(3)) + 2r = 1.87", and the total height of three rows is (2r * sqrt(3)) + 2r = 2.73".]

[Edit 2: Including a top row consisting of fractional circles gives about another 79.8 circles. Just need the two fractional circles from the middle row...]

[Edit 3: Symmetry is nice. You get one half circle on either end of the middle row. So, using a hexagonal configuration gives you a total of 2079.81914 circles. But I think including fractional circles is cheating.]

[ December 23, 2003, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Juliette ]

Posts: 38 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
I can fit 2007. It's pretty cool that it works out. [Smile] I can't prove that it's optimal, though. Yet.

Saxon, you're right that the densest configuration is hexagonal, but it doesn't end up being very efficient over a large scale because of the shape of the container. So I figured I'd try little chunks of hexagonally packed circles.

If you do chunks of four circles like so:
code:
 ()()
()()

but tilt the whole chunk up so that it touches the top and bottom of the containing box (about 5.26 degrees), you shave a little bit of space (about 0.0856 inches per chunk). Not only that, you can do even better than the 2.414 (actually, exactly 1 + sqrt(2)) inches, since the chunks can overlap slightly (in the x direction -- the circles themselves don't overlap). This lets you fit four circles every 1.99156... inches, after paying the initial 0.414-inch cost of not using a square lattice.

You can squeeze 501 of these 4-circle chunks into the box, with enough room for another 3 circles at the end. That's 2007. It'll be a good problem for the ARML competition in three and a half years.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Well done, Mike. 2,007 is the best I know of (done slightly differently), but I've never seen it proven that it's the highest. Way to think outside the box inside the box. *smile*
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
[Big Grin]

Well, don't keep me waiting... how do you fit 2007?

*goes off to figure out question 2 in the original post*

Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
Triangles rather than diamonds -- 1,2,3 at far left, pull circles 4,5,6 up and slightly left, then 7,8,9 move left, then 10,11,12 up and left, etc. Still fits 2,007.

--Pop

Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting. Looks like you have to fudge the last set of three to fit them. Actually, I'm not quite convinced you can fit more than two in the space left over, but I could be wrong.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
Original post question (2):

First part -- angles. The angle between adjacent hexagonal faces is the same as in an icosahedron, or about 138.19 degrees. The angle between hexagonal and pentagonal faces is about 114.80 degrees. I hope these are the angles you're looking for. (If you want to know how I figured it out, I'd be glad to explain.)

Second part -- volume. Um, lemme work on this for a sec.

Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
Ooh, made a mistake. Disregard those angles. Will try again later. D'oh.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Mike   Email Mike         Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, not sure if anyone else is really interested in this. But hey, I am and that's all that matters, right? [Big Grin]

Pop, it actually looks like your solution fits 2011 circles, so you beat me by 4 (my dad figured this one out, though he needed a couple of hints before he believed anything over 2000 was possible).

OK, I was right about the angle between the hexagonal faces (~138.19 degrees). The angle between hexagonal and pentagonal faces is 142.62 degrees and change.

The volume of an icosahedron with side length 1 is about 2.18169. A truncated icosahedron has 1/3 the side length of the original, so we have to multiply by 27, and then subtract the 12 truncated pentagonal pyramids. I might have made a mistake, but the final result I get is 58.77176.

Now, can anyone back me up here? [Smile] [Razz]

Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Moose
Member
Member # 1992

 - posted      Profile for Papa Moose   Email Papa Moose         Edit/Delete Post 
That's what I get for trusting someone else's math (I figured out the method but he did the calculations). I'm gonna have to calculate it myself now to be confident of the answer. As to the others, no, I can't bring myself to care much about question #2. It's not a brain teaser -- it's a math problem. Pure calculation with no logical puzzles. So no, can't back you up.

--Pop

Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2