Randomness thread, part two.

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, 'au contraire' and 'en route' are more like idioms than cliches too.

So whoever complained about people using such phrases, called them cliches, but then called similar phrases he used himself metaphors, is severely verbally challenged.

[BananaStand]

To be fair, 'au contraire' and 'en route' are more like idioms than cliches too.

WHAT??????

IDIOM: noun, a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words (e.g., rain cats and dogs, see the light ).

En route, translated, means "on the way" or "along the way". And Au contraire, translated, means "on the contrary".

The meaning of both of those phrases ABSOLUTELY IS deducible from the meanings of individual words.

Of all the phrases discussed on this topic today....those two are the most UNQUALIFIED to be idioms.

EHL OH EHL

Cliche: noun, a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought

So if you're trying to be clever by using the phrase "en route", then it's a cliche. Because it's not clever. It betrays a lack of original thought. You could just say "on the way". instead, if you tried to be clever, and used phrasing that shows you to be NOT clever....then you have used a cliche.

So whoever complained about people using such phrases, called them cliches, but then called similar phrases he used himself metaphors poopadoop, is severely verbally challenged.

FYP

[Poopadoop]

So if you're trying to be clever by using the phrase "walking on eggshells", "feet to the fire" or "lol MAGA", then it's a cliche. Because it's not clever. It betrays a lack of original thought.

In fact the only thing dumber than using such phrases would be referring to them as "metaphors"

fyp

[OngBonga]

I used the phrase "en route", not because I'm trying to be clever (although when I write it I insist on doing so correctly). Despite it being a French term, it's part of our language too, like culs-de-sac.

"Au contaire" is different though. The nature of the term imples disagreement, so often when someone says it, they are using a pretentious foreign term to disagree with the point you just made. It's an attempt to massage the ego.

"En route" is just a phrase, no different to saying "I'll be five minutes" when you actually mean "not long". In fact it's better because it's literally correct, you are literally on the way. "Five minutes" is probably an idiom, because you don't mean "literally five minutes".

[OngBonga]

First one to answer this question correctly gets a cookie...

You have a right triangle with a hypotenuse of 10, and an altitude to the hypotenuse of 6. What is the area of the triangle?

[MadMojoMonkey]

bh/2 = 10 [units]*6 [units]/2 = 30 [units]^2

[Poopadoop]

1/2 base x height gets a cookie? I guess if you're gonna give a grade 3 puzzle it's right you give a grade 3 prize.

[OngBonga]

Fools.

[OngBonga]

You guys are as dumb as me.

[OngBonga]

I solved this one...

[OngBonga]

You have a right triangle with a hypotenuse of 10, and an altitude to the hypotenuse of 6. What is the area of the triangle?

I'll give you a hint with this one...

6 is more than half of 10.

[OngBonga]

Alright, I'll give you the infuriating answer to the triangle one, I wouldn't want you wasting the time I did trying to solve it.

There is no such triangle. This can be figured out using logic, but you have to mentally encircle your triangle to realise it. If the triangle is right, then as the altitude increase, the right angle will draw out a semicircle. Its peak will be when the altitude bisects the hypotenuse... which is the same as the radius of the semicircle it creates... which of course is half of the hypotenuse, which is the diameter of this semicircle. 5 is the maximum altitude.

[Poopadoop]

You guys are as dumb as me.

I didn't say that was the answer.

I had to look up altitude to hypotenuse because i'd never heard of that before.

So you have two separate triangles and blah blah blah you do some math and the answer is whatever.

[OngBonga]

I had to look up altitude, too. I don't remember that term from school, I thought it was simply the height.

[Poopadoop]

Alright, I'll give you the infuriating answer to the triangle one, I wouldn't want you wasting the time I did trying to solve it.

There is no such triangle. This can be figured out using logic, but you have to mentally encircle your triangle to realise it. If the triangle is right, then as the altitude increase, the right angle will draw out a semicircle. Its peak will be when the altitude bisects the hypotenuse... which is the same as the radius of the semicircle it creates... which of course is half of the hypotenuse, which is the diameter of this semicircle. 5 is the maximum altitude.

Or, like i was going to say, it's impossible to have such a triangle.

Puzzles like this are retarded - like asking, what is the diameter of a square? A: You dumb fuck it doesn't exist.

[OngBonga]

Puzzles like this are retarded - like asking, what is the diameter of a square? A: You dumb fuck it doesn't exist.

It's not retarded. 1 kid in 100 gets this right, that kid needs quality education.

[OngBonga]

So long as the answer can be reached using logic, it's not retarded.

[Poopadoop]

It's not retarded. 1 kid in 100 gets this right, that kid needs quality education.

I'd be impressed by such a kid, that's true.

Edit: in a rain man kinda way I mean. I'd probably be more concerned if he had any friends or got out in the fresh air enough than in trying to develop his savant-ness.

[Poopadoop]

Reminds me of a chapter is the neurologist Sacks' book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, where he describes different people with brain damage he'd studied. In one chapter, he gets asked to examine these autistic twins who won't engage with adults, but who only talk to each other. He sees them sitting on a bench and discreetly walks over to observe them. They're being really quiet then finally one says somethiing like '1,304,783,497' and the other stops and thinks for a minute, then smiles and nods, and then a couple of minutes later rattles off some other huge number. And on they go, back and forth, for about an hour.

Sacks is watching them thinking 'wtf are these numbers?', so he starts writing them down and takes them to a mathematician. The guy goes 'hmm' and looks in this book he has on his shelf, and it turns out they're all prime numbers. These kids are just figuring this out somehow in their heads and sharing them with each other, 'cause apparently that's their idea of a good time.

headexplode.jpg

[OngBonga]

I hope you randomly selected 1,304,783,497 because it is indeed prime.

I know that because I just dropped that many matches on the floor.

[OngBonga]

Check this guy out...

[Poopadoop]

I hope you randomly selected 1,304,783,497 because it is indeed prime.

No idea. I just knew it shouldn't end with an even number or a 5.

I know that because I just dropped that many matches on the floor.

haha.

[OngBonga]

If I were going to punt at a big prime, I'd end it in a 7 for sure, but after that it's just pure guesswork.

Oh I guess I can be arsed to make sure the numbers don't add up to a multiple of 9. But now I'm really out of ideas.

Seriously, that number is prime, I checked it on the internet.

[Poopadoop]

Check this guy out...

All the big numbers you pick are multiples of 25 right? So once you figure out the quarters of everything you're ok there.

Not saying I'd get that in 30 seconds without doing a lot of practising at home first though lol.

[Poopadoop]

Seriously, that number is prime, I checked it on the internet.

Honestly, had no idea until you told me. I almost typed in an 8 on the end though. Not sure a real savant would do that.

[OngBonga]

All the big numbers you pick are multiples of 25 right? So once you figure out the quarters of everything you're ok there.

Not saying I'd get that in 30 seconds without doing a lot of practising at home first though lol.

Not quite. He didn't multiply by 75 and then divide by 25, which is essntially multiplying by three. He multiplied by 75, subtracted 50, and then divided by 25, to reach the correct answer. That's fucking autism, Carol didn't know whether to laugh or suck his dick.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Fools.

Yeah. I even drew the picture, satisfied myself that the picture was good enough to answer your question and left it at that.
I stared at it long enough to see that the altitude cuts the big triangle into 2 other triangles, all 3 of which are similar, and we have 2 numbers, so we can probably solve the rest of the numbers if we have 1 more piece of information: an angle that is not 90 or another length.

It didn't occur to me to question the constraints further, since I didn't have enough info to solve the whole thing.

It's one of the cooler circle / right triangle relationships, IMO.
If you draw a circle,
then draw a diameter across that circle,
then pick any other point* on the circle,
and if you draw a line from that point to each end of the diameter, you always create a 90 degree angle.

The endpoints of the diameter are special cases that don't follow for obvious reasons of you don't have 3 points on the circle, only 2, with 1 of them repeated, so you can't really make an angle.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Oh I guess I can be arsed to make sure the numbers don't add up to a multiple of 9. But now I'm really out of ideas.

Since in base 10, this property occurs for the number 9, and since 9 is 3^2, this property applies to 3 as well.

I.e. if all the digits add up to a multiple of 3, then the number is divisible by 3 in base 10.
Since 3, 6, 9 are already multiples of 3, you can ignore them when adding digits.

It's a recursive function. You're checking if the "above" number is divisible by 3 by performing an operation and then checking if the result is divisible by 3. So if you're still not sure, you can repeat the process to the "below" number.

However, that's not useful, because you can just look at some really long number and start crossing off all the multiples of 3, then any number pairs that sum to multiples of 3 and eventually, the whole thing is crossed out and it's divisible by 3, or something isn't crossed out and it's not.

[OngBonga]

[moved to shitposting thread]

[OngBonga]

Oh I was gonna post that in the politics shitposting thread, oops.

[OngBonga]

Yeah. I even drew the picture, satisfied myself that the picture was good enough to answer your question and left it at that.

Mental note - not to scale

It's really the only way to solve it I think, by drawing a to-scale triangle and realising that it is impossible to do so without decaying the right angle to an acute angle. It's funny too, because once you understand the solution, it feels almost obvious.

But clearly it's not obvious, because very few people solve it. I didn't, I said 30 too, even though I was saying exactly the same as what everyone else was saying, that I must be wrong, but just couldn't figure out how it could be wrong. I looked up "altitude" twice, just in case I was missing something there.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You have a right triangle with a hypotenuse of 10, and an altitude to the hypotenuse of 6. What is the area of the triangle?

The thing is that the area of that triangle is still 30... it just isn't a right triangle, and therefore doesn't have a hypotenuse.

Pick any side of any triangle and measure it, and its altitude, multiply those and divide by 2. You got the area of the triangle. This is always true for all triangles (in a Euclidean plane, obv.), not just right triangles.


None of the 4 physics professors I showed this to saw that the givens were impossible.
Though 2 of them didn't want me to spoil it, so I'll have to check with them tomorrow and see what they got.

[Poopadoop]

The thing is that the area of that triangle is still 30... it just isn't a right triangle, and therefore doesn't have a hypotenuse.

That's sorta the point though right? It can't be a right triangle with those properties.

It's like asking what's the volume of a circle or some stupid shit like that. It doesn't compute.

[Poopadoop]

Here's a question that supposedly isn't a trick, but the answer seems obvious to me, so I assume it must be.

"You have 5 donuts and they need to be cut up and shared equally among 3 people. Find the solution that maximises the size of the smallest piece any person receives."

[OngBonga]

None of the 4 physics professors I showed this to saw that the givens were impossible.

I'm glad you've showed this to other brainboxes!

Yes, of course the area of a triangle with that height and base is indeed 30. But you actually had a very solid ground from which to solve this problem... you know that a right triangle inside a circle and tangent to the circumference has special properties, one of which is that the height cannot possibly be greater than the radius of the circle without escaping the circle and "breaking" the anglular relationship. That's the key to solving it really.

"You have 5 donuts and they need to be cut up and shared equally among 3 people. Find the solution that maximises the size of the smallest piece any person receives."

I think it's impossible to share it out evenly. I can cut a doughnut into two, four or eight equal pieces, but not three.

If I make the assumption I can cut a doughnut into three equal pieces, well I think one sixth is the smallest piece, since it's a third of a half, which is what we're left with after sharing out the other 4.5 doughnuts.

[OngBonga]

It's a weird problem if it's impossible, for the simple reason that it's also technically impossible for me to cut a doughnut into precisely half. I will just be much more accurate cutting it into half than a third.

[OngBonga]

Also I'm not cutting a doughnut into three, I'm cutting half a doughnut into three. If I can cut half a doughnut into three, I can also cut a whole doughnut into three, which makes one third the smallest piece.

It's either one third, or it's impossible.

[Jack Sawyer]

Here's a question that supposedly isn't a trick, but the answer seems obvious to me, so I assume it must be.

"You have 5 donuts and they need to be cut up and shared equally among 3 people. Find the solution that maximises the size of the smallest piece any person receives."

Cut each donut in 3, everyone gets 5 equal cuts = maximized smallest piece.

Other than that, everyone gets a full donut, two people get a 2/3 donut, and one person gets two 1/3 donuts = smallest piece varies.

Oh, and fuck riddles

[OngBonga]

Yeah I'm satsified with that answer. If at any stage we have a way to cut a small piece evenly into three, we could have just done that to a whole doughnut. I don't even need to figure out a method of doing so, I just need to assume that the method works for any size piece.

So either 1/3, or impossible. I would say the latter, since I really can't think of a way to cut three even pieces.

[OngBonga]

Cut each donut in 3

How are you doing this evenly?

[OngBonga]

If we have tools, such as a protractor, then we can do it.

[BananaStand]

throw 2 donuts in the garbage....

duh

[Poopadoop]

It's a weird problem if it's impossible, for the simple reason that it's also technically impossible for me to cut a doughnut into precisely half. I will just be much more accurate cutting it into half than a third.

Presume you have a laser-guided diamond cutter that allows you to cut the doughnuts into any sized pieces you feel necessary.

Remember the goal is to end up with an even division of the 5 donuts among three people AND to maximize the size of the smallest piece of donut.

Also, the answer is not 1/3 (which is what I thought), but there is an answer.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Everybody gets a whole donut, 2 people get 2/3 of a donut, and one person gets 2 * 1/3 of 2 donuts.

I don't see any way to get the smallest piece greater than 1/3 donut.
Anything you do to try to increase the size of a slice, will decrease the size of another slice.
Increasing any slice of 1/3 decreases one of the 2/3 slices, throwing off the ratio by the difference. In order to make up the difference, you will need another slice. That slice will be smaller than 1/3 donut.

[OngBonga]

Better would be to ask which cunt brought 5 doughnuts for three people, and that fucker only gets one.

[OngBonga]

Presume you have a laser-guided diamond cutter that allows you to cut the doughnuts into any sized pieces you feel necessary.

Ok, with this in mind I'll ponder it some more.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I have other reasons to say 1/3.
Each person gets 5/3 donut, and 5 doesn't split into bits except {1,4} and {2,3} and you can't cut 4/3 of a donut, and you can't cut 2/3 without creating 1/3.

I wait to be shown how wrong I am.

[BananaStand]

Also, the answer is not 1/3 (which is what I thought), but there is an answer.

I'm pretty sure I already got it. The answer is that the smallest piece each person gets is a whole doughnut.

Ignore the other two doughnuts

[Poopadoop]

Everybody gets a whole donut, 2 people get 2/3 of a donut, and one person gets 2 * 1/3 of 2 donuts.

I don't see any way to get the smallest piece greater than 1/3 donut.
Anything you do to try to increase the size of a slice, will decrease the size of another slice.
Increasing any slice of 1/3 decreases one of the 2/3 slices, throwing off the ratio by the difference. In order to make up the difference, you will need another slice. That slice will be smaller than 1/3 donut.

So you have to cut at least one donut, and the largest size you can get with a single cut is two 1/2 sized pieces.

It won't work if all you do is cut 5 donuts into 10 halves, so there must be another way. Cutting into thirds will work, but won't maximize the size of the smallest piece.

[BananaStand]

BTW, I read that Dunkin' Donuts is changing their name to just "Dunkin's"

I guess nobody gets any doughnuts.

[Poopadoop]

I have other reasons to say 1/3.
Each person gets 5/3 donut, and 5 doesn't split into bits except {1,4} and {2,3} and you can't cut 4/3 of a donut, and you can't cut 2/3 without creating 1/3.

I wait to be shown how wrong I am.

It helps not to limit your thinking to fractions of 3.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm pretty sure I already got it. The answer is that the smallest piece each person gets is a whole doughnut.

Ignore the other two doughnuts

"they need to be cut up and shared equally"

Is "they" all the donuts? Only enough to "share equally"? Is "share equally" not implicitly saying, "share all of them equally?"

Does "cut up" not mean to cut in such a way as to separate the donuts into individual pieces?

I.e. can we use Nanner's solution if we put a slice in each donut that doesn't actually cut it into separate pieces, then ignore 2 donuts?
If so, he's the winner, here.

If "cut up" means to create more pieces than you started with, but "share equally" doesn't mean to share all of the donuts, then the answer is 1/2 donut.
Cutting the donut in half maximizes the size of the smaller piece. Now there are 10 halves, and each person gets 9 of them. The final half is sacrificed to the math gods.

[Poopadoop]

"they need to be cut up and shared equally"

Is "they" all the donuts? Only enough to "share equally"? Is "share equally" not implicitly saying, "share all of them equally?"

Does "cut up" not mean to cut in such a way as to separate the donuts into individual pieces?

I.e. can we use Nanner's solution if we put a slice in each donut that doesn't actually cut it into separate pieces, then ignore 2 donuts?
If so, he's the winner, here.

If "cut up" means to create more pieces than you started with, but "share equally" doesn't mean to share all of the donuts, then the answer is 1/2 donut.
Cutting the donut in half maximizes the size of the smaller piece. Now there are 10 halves, and each person gets 9 of them. The final half is sacrificed to the math gods.

You're outside the box, but too far outside.

All 5 donuts needs to be accounted for. Each person needs to get 5/3 donuts. The trick is to think of 5/3 in a different way.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It helps not to limit your thinking to fractions of 3.

I await being humbled by your revelatory solution.

[OngBonga]

It helps not to limit your thinking to fractions of 3.

I'm on 24ths and still can't solve it.

[OngBonga]

If you tell mojo, put it in a spoiler please.

[Poopadoop]

Spoiler: Show

Ok here it is: each person gets 5/3 = 20/12 donuts.

Donut 1 gets cut into two halves 6/12 and 6/12
Donuts 2 and 3 each get cut into two pieces 5/12 and 7/12


So you have two 6/12 pieces, four 5/12 and four 7/12

Person 1 gets a 7+7+6 = 20
P2 also gets 7+7+6 = 20
P3 gets 5+5+5+5 =20

Whoever thought of this puzzle gets precision-castrated with a laser-guided diamond cutter.

[OngBonga]

I'm definitely making progress here.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Nice.

[OngBonga]

First of all, if the answer is bigger than one third, then at no stage can we cut a doughnut into 3, it is always into two, or not at all. The not at all can still be thought of as two acceptable pieces, since it will be two halves.

Everyone must have 40/24

There will be ten pieces to share evenly between three. Someone will get an extra piece, so we need two ways to make 40/24 with three numbers, and one way to make 40/24 with four numbers.

We can't have a piece smaller than 9/24, which also means we can't have a piece bigger than 15/24.

The average in the case of 3 is 13.333... here's the list of three numbers that make 40, without using a number lower than 9 or bigger than 15...
13 13 14
12 13 15
11 14 15
10 15 15

The average for four is 10, that's gotta be one of...
10 10 10 10
9 10 10 11
9 9 11 11

Let's split four into 10/24 and 14/24, and give the four 10/24 pieces to person A. We have four 14/24 pieces left.
Give person B two of them, and person C two of them. There's at 28/40.
Split the the one in half, give them both one half, which is 12/24, and then have 40/24

The smallest pieces is 10/24, or 5/12

[OngBonga]

I solved it, but by using 24ths instead of 12ths, I just did 8*3 to get a common denonimator.

That was extremely satisfying. I'm so sad.

[Poopadoop]

Let's split four into 10/24 and 14/24, and give the four 10/24 pieces to person A. We have four 14/24 pieces left.
Give person B two of them, and person C two of them. There's at 28/40.
Split the the one in half, give them both one half, which is 12/24, and then have 40/24

The smallest pieces is 10/24, or 5/12

That's right but you didn't need to go above 12ths.

[MadMojoMonkey]

First of all, if the answer is bigger than one third, then at no stage can we cut a doughnut into 3, it is always into two, or not at all. The not at all can still be thought of as two acceptable pieces, since it will be two halves.

Everyone must have 40/24

There will be ten pieces to share evenly between three. Someone will get an extra piece, so we need two ways to make 40/24 with three numbers, and one way to make 40/24 with four numbers.

We can't have a piece smaller than 9/24, which also means we can't have a piece bigger than 15/24.

The average in the case of 3 is 13.333... here's the list of three numbers that make 40, without using a number lower than 9 or bigger than 15...
13 13 14
12 13 15
11 14 15
10 15 15

The average for four is 10, that's gotta be one of...
10 10 10 10
9 10 10 11
9 9 11 11

Let's split four into 10/24 and 14/24, and give the four 10/24 pieces to person A. We have four 14/24 pieces left.
Give person B two of them, and person C two of them. There's at 28/40.
Split the the one in half, give them both one half, which is 12/24, and then have 40/24

The smallest pieces is 10/24, or 5/12

[OngBonga]

It actually helped me to work in 24ths because the penny dropped for me when I realised we could only have 9 or 10 pieces of cake, and 9 is the same as 10 because one would be whole or two halves. Once I realised someone gets four pieces while the others get three, it was easy, because I knew I needed 40/24, and could quickly see I could cut four cakes into 10/24 and 14/24. I might not have seen that so quickly if I were thinking in terms of 5/12 looking for 20/12.

[OngBonga]

I tell you what, I might say some stupid shit sometimes, and for sure I do some stupid shit sometimes too, but I know I'm not a dumbass. I can solve some pretty hard problems when I put my mind to it.

I'm off to an auction soon to do some stupid shit, like buy a guitar that could be worth a tenner or could be worth hundreds. I'll pay up to £20 for it, if it's shit I'll keep it for myself.

[BananaStand]

I still say "throw two doughnuts in the garbage" is the right answer.

This reminds me of a "team building" exercise that HR made us do at that conference in Canada I had last week.

Setup: A group of 4-6 people stand in a small circle with their index fingers extended, palm up, parallel to the floor at shoulder height. A hula hoop is placed in the middle so that it is supported by all the fingers.

Object: Bring the hula hoop to the floor

What followed was a showcase of mental retardation. If everyone just tries to move down at once, it gets fucked up. The lesson is to communicate with your team and achieve the goal....blah blah blah blah. For most of the groups this worked. Their hula hoop was all over the place until someone starting talking and setting the pace and telling people what to do.

My group looked at each other for the first ninth of a second and then I said "everybody take one big step backward" *hoop falls on the floor*

Easy game.

[OngBonga]

I still say "throw two doughnuts in the garbage" is the right answer.

Dude you have a laser cutting device, you're not gonna use it? At least cut two into thirds if you can't be fucked with the logic challenge.

[OngBonga]

My group looked at each other for the first ninth of a second and then I said "everybody take one big step backward" *hoop falls on the floor*

Gravity does the fucking work. I wouldn't even speak, I'd just pull my finger away. Job's a good 'un, where's the biscuits?

[OngBonga]

Or just grab it and put it on the floor.

[Jack Sawyer]

How are you doing this evenly?

Assuming perfect donuts (which is in practicality impossible, so fuck riddles),

with a geodriehoek and a knife

[Jack Sawyer]

Spoiler: Show

Ok here it is: each person gets 5/3 = 20/12 donuts.

Donut 1 gets cut into two halves 6/12 and 6/12
Donuts 2 and 3 each get cut into two pieces 5/12 and 7/12


So you have two 6/12 pieces, four 5/12 and four 7/12

Person 1 gets a 7+7+6 = 20
P2 also gets 7+7+6 = 20
P3 gets 5+5+5+5 =20

Whoever thought of this puzzle gets precision-castrated with a laser-guided diamond cutter.

Beautiful.

Also, fuck puzzles.

[Poopadoop]

with a geodriehoek

This is some kind of hook that has geometry? Is there an English name for it?

[MadMojoMonkey]

This is some kind of hook that has geometry? Is there an English name for it?

protractor

[Poopadoop]

This is some kind of hook that has geometry? Is there an English name for it?

Ah, it's a protractor. 'hoek' means angle.

So it's a geometric angle thing. Cool.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it's Dutch, but it has that Germanic compound word quality that I just love.
The German word for vacuum cleaner translates to dust-sucker
The word for lightbulb translates to glowing-pear.
One of their words for airplane (flugzeug) is flying-thing.