Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
FWIW, the reason I used some strange wording is that, because in the actual book, there are several puzzles of the lady and the tiger sort, this is the last of them, and in most of the previous puzzles there is only one lady and one tiger, so I explained the rules of the trial with these previous puzzles in mind and did not bother to check that my wording was consistent with this problem. By the way, it is still not clear to me. You have assumed that there was at least one tiger, not exactly one? The solution to the puzzle (which is provided in the book, btw) really does have at least one tiger, as Fractal pointed out. So, if your reasoning is correct, you should have arrived at room 7, no? About "either or", I copied it from the book and I always assume the same as Fractal. Anyway, at which step of your solution do you rely on "either or" being exclusive? That's not clear to me. Sure, I could have said that the king always says the truth and the prisoner is a perfect logician who always acts by logic. What did you assume in your solution?
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
I'm not sure which book you are referring to, but later on, I did check out the link that you provided and I went far down on the page to a referenced page that linked to this place: http://clasen.blogspot.com/2012_02_01_archive.html And in there, my brother that also studies math got interested in it, and we checked through how the person on that referenced page went through it, and my brother detected a part that would have been a mistake if the person was using our version of the puzzle: A few paragraphs down from the top (should be the 7th from the top), the person arrives (during a case that the person currently investigates) at the following:
Sign V is yet another two statements linked by an ‘or’. They are both false, according to the logic explained just before. For one, this means that Room II is indeed empty, as its sign states.
And in our case we have ''V - Either sign II or sign IV is right. '', so that the negation of both parts would include the negation of sign V saying that the statement of sign II is false, which would mean the room behind sign II is not empty (as opposed to what the person concludes in the person's puzzle version, where sign V says the following instead: ''ROOM V: SIGN II IS LYING OR SIGN IV TELLS THE TRUTH'').
What did you assume in your solution?
I think I mentioned (most of) the additional assumptions with respect to which i investigated the puzzle, but in this case, I read the part ''and the prisoner successfully deduced the location of the lady.'' and wasn't sure which statement the prisoner used for this (final) deduction (since singular deduction steps generally don't follow from multiple statements ''together'' but always from exactly 1 statement that is applied for a given ''irreducible'' step, even though if one looks at a ''larger step'' then in this case multiple statements together in some chain could be refered to, but I assumed it was just 1 final piece that made the prisoner deduce the result, as opposed to many). Sure, one could assume the statement would be related to the communication right before that, but I didn't want to jump conclusions, since it could aswell have been the case that the prisoner made a mistake or got stuck for other reasons to conclude that the puzzle was not uniquely solvable with respect to determining the door behind which the Lady must be, and could aswell have gotten an idea or inspiration after or due to the discussion with the king at the end. So after I finished with 1 constellation that fulfilled the conditions that are induced by the statements of the signs and the implications given by what object is (or isn't) individually behind a room, for all the rooms, (and because I didn't want to go through all combinatorically possible options to see what other cases there might exist, and simply assumed that if the puzzle was in some way solvable at all, then all cases must end up with the Lady also resulting behind the same door behind which my 1 constellation had her), I added this corresponding assumption namely that if it is solvable, then there couldn't be different rooms in which the Lady could end up in different constellations, i.e. all constellations would have her behind the same door, and because I already had 1 constellation that worked and provided me with a/the door for the Lady, my conclusion was to choose said door (the first one).
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
The book I'm referring to, which I wrote in my first post, and the precise edition I have is this. I don't know if the guy somehow changed things, but on the version of the book I have, on pages 22 and 23, the signs say exactly what I wrote here. I can scan if you want to see... Anyway, let us see what happens if we change sign V as in the blogpost. What happens is that sign II is now true, which means that room II is indeed empty. The rest of the reasoning is the same and the lady is still on room VII.
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
I mean either the king's statement, provided it is true, does actually give rise to the uniqueness of the solution that satisfies all sign and room content conditions, or it doesn't, but are we sure it does? If so, then the solution (or well, at least when I checked 2 or 3 times through the list of sign statements, I couldn't find any contradiction) that I provided in my 2nd post, I: True, the Lady is in the room behind it. II: True, room behind it is empty. III: False, room behind it is empty. IV: False, a Tiger is in the room behind it. V: True, the room behind it is empty. VI: True, the room behind it is empty. VII: False, the room behind it is empty. VIII: False, the room behind it is empty. IX: False, the room behind it is empty. , must be a case that is excluded/eliminated as option if the information on if the content of room VIII being empty or a Tiger allows to get a unique solution. Now for the case that it is empty (and since this is the case in my example constellation), if my door choice doesn't represent a solution, this must mean that there'd at least exist 1 other valid constellation in which the room behind door VIII is empty but has the Lady behind a different door. So we are either left with the case that a unique solution is determined if there's a Tiger behind door VIII, or the puzzle is still not uniquely solvable. And through a lot of translating the sign statements into mathematical expressions, and then writing down the possible combinations of these, my brother resulted in 2 constellations (and there might even be others in which the Lady is even at new rooms) which had a Tiger in the room behind VIII, and had the Lady at 2 different rooms: I: True, Lady II: True, empty III: False, empty IV: False, {Tiger, empty} V: True, empty VI: True, empty VII: False, {Tiger, empty} VIII: False, Tiger IX: False, Tiger I: False, {Tiger, empty} II: True, empty III: False, {Tiger, empty} IV: True, {empty, Lady (the Lady is either here or behind door VI)} V: False, {Tiger, empty} VI: True, {empty, Lady (the Lady is either here or behind door IV)} VII: True, empty VIII: False, Tiger IX: False, Tiger In the above case, the Lady is behind door 1, and in the latter case, the Lady is behind door 4 or 6. (I haven't checked these constellations myself yet, though). Edit: Oh sorry, I forgot to respond to this: [quote p4wn3r] Anyway, at which step of your solution do you rely on "either or" being exclusive? That's not clear to me. [/quote] Well, there's multiple steps I think in which this exclusive or-interpretation was used, since I (but also my brother, so maybe the non-uniqueness is all just a result from this) interpreted both of the signs ''III - Either sign V is right or sign VII is wrong.'' and ''V - Either sign II or sign IV is right.'' as ''either x or y, but not both at the same time''. But this confuses me a bit, since I really thought that the use of ''either'' generally referred to the exclusive case. 2nd edit: Well at least after a quick search, I found some supporting reference on what my intuition told me on how to interpret the ''either'': https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13889/does-either-a-or-b-preclude-both-a-and-b
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Aran Jaeger wrote:
2nd edit: Well at least after a quick search, I found some supporting reference on what my intuition told me on how to interpret the ''either'': https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13889/does-either-a-or-b-preclude-both-a-and-b
Incidentally, that reminded me of a very nice joke. A logician leaves his profession and decides to become an obstetrician. After his first patient has her baby with no complication, he congratulates the father, which promptly asks him: "Doctor, is it a boy or a girl?" And he instantly replies: "Yes."
Editor, Skilled player (1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Aran Jaeger wrote:
But this confuses me a bit, since I really thought that the use of ''either'' generally referred to the exclusive case. 2nd edit: Well at least after a quick search, I found some supporting reference on what my intuition told me on how to interpret the ''either'': https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13889/does-either-a-or-b-preclude-both-a-and-b
Indeed, in normal conversation in the English language, most of the time "either ... or" is exclusive, or heavily implied to be exclusive even if not (e.g. the Wikipedia page which I just linked uses the term "either/or situation" with a specifically exclusive meaning). However it is also possible that "either" has a meaning indicating indifference to both cases being true (a possibly inclusive meaning). In English, context is important as to which meaning is implied so there is minimal confusion. But mathematicians/logicians are supposed to use exact language to express math/logic. My assumption is that, since "either" is ambiguous, the word has no meaning in a math or logic problem, so there is no meaningful distinction between "either A or B" and "A or B". And as I learned in logic, "A OR B" includes the case when both A and B are true (whenever possible). That is my reasoning for why I consider it to be a use of OR (inclusive or).
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
FractalFusion wrote:
Indeed, in normal conversation in the English language, most of the time "either ... or" is exclusive, or heavily implied to be exclusive even if not (e.g. the Wikipedia page which I just linked uses the term "either/or situation" with a specifically exclusive meaning). However it is also possible that "either" has a meaning indicating indifference to both cases being true (a possibly inclusive meaning).
In the vast majority of spoken languages the word "or" is ambiguous because it can be inclusive or exclusive. In English, as you say, the word "either" doesn't necessarily disambiguate it. "The price of the meal includes either one cup of coffee or one cup of tea." Based on cultural context, this is certainly an exclusive or. It would be extraordinary if an establishment would offer both a cup of coffee and a cup of tea for the same price as either one. "The requirement to apply for this job is either a degree in electrical engineering or at least two years of work experience in the field." Again, based on cultural context, this is most certainly an inclusive or. It would be baffling and extraordinarily unusual if the requirement would exclude someone who has both.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Warp wrote:
"The requirement to apply for this job is either a degree in electrical engineering or at least two years of work experience in the field." Again, based on cultural context, this is most certainly an inclusive or. It would be baffling and extraordinarily unusual if the requirement would exclude someone who has both.
Mandatory SMBC comic.
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
[quote FractalFusion] Indeed, in normal conversation in the English language, most of the time "either ... or" is exclusive, or heavily implied to be exclusive even if not (e.g. the Wikipedia page which I just linked uses the term "either/or situation" with a specifically exclusive meaning). However it is also possible that "either" has a meaning indicating indifference to both cases being true (a possibly inclusive meaning). [/quote] Yes, sure. I'm not saying that the use of ''either'' strictly always excludes that ''both cases at the same time'' is an option. I just meant that I think that on average if one would go over many instances in which ''either'' was used, that one would find that it was meant as an excludive 'or'. However, I want to mention that there's the following symmetry: The same way in which one can view the inclusive 'or' case as its ''default'' meaning and expect that others refer to this same way of interpreting statements and only mean the exclusive case when they say ''this, or that, but not both'', one can in the same way view the exclusive 'or' case as its ''default'' meaning and expect that others refer to this same way of interpreting statements and only mean the inclusive case when they say ''this, or that, or both''. So when the additional word ''either'' is introduced, I see it as equivalent to the german ''entweder'' which we use when we want to make clear that we are talking about the exclusive case. Edit: And in logical statements, the ''either'' to me seems to be an indicator for the exclusive case especially since statements of the form ''either this, or that'' would still make sense if one would leave the ''either'' out and just write it as ''this, or that'', so if the ''or'' in here is meant to express the mathematical V-shaped (inclusive) operator, and one wants to give a meaning to the use of ''either'' (since it could otherwise just be left out), then it makes sense to assign the meaning of exclusiveness to it. (also yay 100th post :))
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Editor, Skilled player (1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
An interesting problem from the Riddler this week: ---- Consider four towns arranged to form the corners of a square, where each side is 10 miles long. You own a road-building company. The state has offered you $28 million to construct a road system linking all four towns in some way, and it costs you $1 million to build one mile of road. Can you turn a profit if you take the job? Extra credit: How does your business calculus change if there were five towns arranged as a pentagon? Six as a hexagon? Etc.? ---- This is similar to a question some time ago about fence optimization, except a little easier. I didn't think too hard about the extra credit part though, except that for a triangle, the result is already known.
Editor, Skilled player (1410)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
This is the best road I could find: When the segment in the middle is (5/3)sqrt(3) miles long, the road's length is 10 + 10sqrt(3), so it costs you about $27.32 million. This reminded me of an problem (for which I don't have an answer) I thought a few months ago that's also about optimizing a road: Consider a circular town of radius 1 mile. You want to build a 1 mile length road inside this town. What is the smallest d for which you can build a road so that every point inside the town is at most d miles away from the street? And perhaps an easier question: as the radius of the town goes to infinity, what will be the shape of the road that minimizes d?
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVoUfT49xN9TU-gDMHv57sw Projects: SMW 96 exit. SDW any%, with Amaraticando. SMA2 SMW small only Kaizo Mario World 3
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Regarding the case with 4 points on a plane, lets say (0,0), (0,10), (10,0), and (10,10), that are to be connected with a curve (or in graph theory terms it'd look like a spanning tree), provided I interpreted this properly, I first tried out a few options just to see what I get with them. I started with an X shape connecting the 4 corners, which ended up at around 28.284... miles, and connecting them with 2 vertical lines/streets (0,0) with (0,10) and (10,0) with (10,10), together with 1 horizontal line/street e.g. like (0,0) to (10,0) which simply gives 30 miles (and is aswell too much). As next step I thought about a free variable that I had at hand with my latter approach, namely the height or the horizontal connection which I could take more centered so it connects the other street segments from (0,5) to (10,5). And from there, one could take the existing street segment structure (consisting of 5 segments) and take the 2 points at which 3 segments each connect, namely these points (0,5) and (10,5) and then pull them horizontally inwards closer to the center (5,5), and let the street segment angles adapt accordingly. And then I remembered the theorem about the optimal parquetting of the flat 2D plane the way the bees do it using hexagonal structures as shortest paths to decompose the entire 2D plane into disjoint subsets with maximized volume while their boundary is minimized (iirc). And from there on, I thought it'd probably be a good idea to embed the 4 given points with their relative positions into such a hexagonal structure. I took an angle of 60°, or analogously 2*pi/6 = pi/3 between the x-axis (in reference to the coordinates that I gave the points/cities) and the straight line that would be defined as the street connection from the origin (0,0) to the horizontally rightwards pulled street segment connection point (0,5) which would then have some position (p,5) where it turns out that p = (5*sqrt(3))/3 = 2.886751346... (''p'' for the via horizontal ''pull'' gained new x-coordinate of the previous point (0,5)). Then with some trigonometry, one can calculate the length of the 4 outer street segments which is 4 times the same, together with the inner horizontal street segment which for general angle alpha gives as total street length the formula L = 10*(1+(2-cos(alpha))/sin(alpha))). (In here, L means the total length of the street, in miles.) And for the special case that I chose, alpha=pi/3 (which was good enough, but yeah with some analysis and derivatives and zeroes to find minima, one could check this part out in more detail), I get 10*(1+sqrt(3)) = 27.32050808... < 28 (miles). For the generalized case I'd try to take the hexagonal grid structure and attempt to match it as closely as possible to the given set of points/cities that are provided. Edit: Looks like we, me and BrunoVisnadi, got to the same solution :) Many more edits: Regarding BrunoVisnadi's math problem, the thing that comes to mind first for me would be a the boundary of a perfect circle centered around the origin that exactly uses up the maximum street length, but some star shapes emerging from the origin might aswell be a good candidate (provided the streets all need to be connected). Thinking about it, the solution might be consisting of 3 street lines emerging outwards from the origin at angle 0°, 120° and 240° (like the situation at a corner of the hexagonal grid that covers a flat 2D plane). Maybe one could improve it further by bending the ends of such 3 line segments (emerging from the origin) let's say clockwise by 60° to help decreasing the distance to the corresponding 3 furthest away (from the street system) points of the 2D ball (or city) at the angles (0+60)°, (120+60)° and (240+60)° though (and one might only need to bend those three each in 1 direction instead of splitting up the ends of the 3 line segments at 60° in both ways, clockwise and counterclockwise, possibly because the increasing distance to another new set of 3 points by only bending the 3 line segments all in (the same) clockwise manner probably can be made up for a bit due to the circular repetition so that the line segment that is 120° counterclockwise to a given line segment also bends in that direction), but I'd not be sure at what point it'd make the most sense to do so, and it makes me think of 3 spirals that move outwards from the origin with some maybe constant curvature (adapted to the circumference of the city, but I kind of doubt a constant curvature, which would make each of the 3 spirals end up as circles if one would continue them, fits for this optimization), or maybe rather to 0 decreasing curvature the further one moves outwards (for larger and larger choices of city circumferences), such that the 3 spirals are offset by 120° (respectively 240°), but I'm a bit sceptical about the use of a structure that is curved instead of consisting just of straight line segments. And I'm also not sure at which part one should be cutting off such spirals then (if one would use them). When I think of this math problem in a dynamical way, then as soon as 3 straight lines grow outwards from the origin like above, immediately 3 corresponding points can be determined that maximize the distance to the streets structure, so one could ''assign tasks'' to each of the 3 outwards growing curves, such that they each "hunt down" or bend towards 1 of the 2 distanct-maximizing closest outer points (let's say the clockwise one among the nearest, each) which will in turn cause 3 new distance-maximizers as points at the circumference of the city to be points that emerge from the initial ones by clockwise movement along the circumference (i.e. the "worst points" should be travelling around the circumference, and be updated every time one adapts to the previous ones by bending towards them). A reason for why bending might be helpful could be the following: If one takes 3 line segments emerging from the origin at angles 0°, 120° and 240°, and e.g. takes the outer most point at angle 60°, then it will have the same distance to 2 end points of the street system, which means for this 1 point its distance to the street system will not get worse if one only bends 1 of the 2 nearest line segments towards or away from it, and then one can try to continue in this manner (update: but unfortunately the distance to points on the other side that one is bending away from becomes larger accordingly). So since (in my currently chosen setting) the total length is what one can "spend" for either stronger curvature of 3 spirals that then don't reach as far outwards but bend heavily/quickly towards new updated "worst points", or weaker curvature for spirals that can reach further outwards but don't bend as much towards "new updated worst points that constitute distance-maximizers to the street system", the solution might be about finding the proper balance between these 2 cases. (Also, one could apply or do this with 2 line segments/spirals with 180° degree offset too, or 4 or more of them, but 3 intuitively seemed like the best choice to me.) Maybe the best "balance" of these 2 principles (growing outwards, to maximize the distance of the end points of the spirals to the origin; and the other would be to increase the curvature) would be reached when the speed with which the 3 worst points travel along the circumference is the same as the speed with which the end points of the curves grow their distance to the origin? Okay an update: My brother (using some calculations) think's 4 spirals (with the same approach otherwise) would be better than 3. He also is more inclined to continue the approach using a ring around the origin, but cutting a segment of its circumference off (not quite a half-ring but an almost fully closed ring). My brother also observed that for the process in which the city's radius diverges towards +infinity, that one is basically dealing with the distance between the all points within the city and the convex hull of the points part of the street system, since if one takes the pythagorean distance and corresponding circles, then the radius of these circles will grow larger and larger which makes the curvature become smaller and smaller and effectively end up being equivalent to straight lines that make up the boundary of the convex hull of the points that make up the street system. And because of this, taking the convex hull (so adding some more points) instead of just the street system doesn't gain one much (i.e. is a negligible difference) in the process of a growing city radius. Actually, if one takes 4 straight lines outwards from the origin (all 4 of same length, along the 2 axes) and takes the 4 end points, then the connecting of the street system such that one can keep these 4 end points is improvable exactly the way as in the previous math problem stated by FractalFusion. (Which means one then can use remaining street length to expand the end points further outwards.) So maybe the same structure is the solution here, if one sets the origin into the center of BrunoVisnadi's graph's street structure.
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Editor, Skilled player (1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Yes, both BrunoVisnadi and Aran Jaeger are correct. Indeed, this is case n=4 of the extremely well-studied Steiner tree problem. I didn't actually know how well-studied it was until I found it on Wikipedia. Don't be confused by the word "tree" here; this is a geometric problem and not (just) a graph theory problem. What is interesting is that every minimal Steiner tree (connected road that joins all given points and has minimum length) has the following properties: - The tree is a set of non-crossing line segments connected at their endpoints. (This is why they called it a "tree".) - Every angle formed by two joined line segments is at least 120°. If three line segments join at a single point, the angle between each pair of line segments is 120°. - At most three line segments can join at a single point. - Every join point that is not one of the given points is interior (within the convex hull of the given points) and has exactly three line segments joined at that point. Using these properties, it is very easy to solve n=3 and n=4. This site discusses general triangles as well as rectangles. The solution for n=4 (this Riddler problem) is shown below: The pentagon case (n=5) is discussed on this site. The solution for n=5 is shown below: However, it turns out that for n≥6, the minimal Steiner tree is just the polygon on the points minus an edge. (Just because a Steiner tree satisfies all the properties above doesn't mean that it has minimum length!) More information is in this paper. The case n=6 has some local minima, but hexagon minus an edge is the minimum: As for BrunoVisnadi's problem, assuming the road must be connected, I have so far a value of d≈0.812, where d=1-cos(x) and x is the root of cos(x)(pi-x+1)+sin(x)-1.5 in [0,pi/2]. The road I have is a "broken circle", having the shape of a hairband (I don't know how to describe it better). I'll explain how I got this later.
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Also, I thought it'd fit to go ahead and explain an approach to my earlier challenge/puzzle that I posted on the previous page, before it maybe is forgotten and just sits there: For a function g: U -> |R, x |-> g(x), to have a graph that acts as such symmetry curve, one can derive the condition for this as follows: For every point (x,g(x)) on the function's graph, the function's slope at the corresponding x coordinate is given by the derivative (which exists by the differentiability assumption) g' of g at the point x. Now in order to get the (unique) slope for an affine function h_{x} through the point (x,g(x)) such that its graph intersects the tangent of g through the point (x,g(x)) orthogonally, we solve the corresponding condition for this to be true, namely g'(x)*(h_{x})'(x)= -1, so the slope of the affine function h_{x} (which is constant since the function is affine) would need to be (h_{x})'= -1/(g'(x)). So the affine function h_{x} which goes through (x,g(x)) has the form h_{x}: |R -> |R, t |-> h_{x}(t)= -t/(g'(x)) + x/(g'(x)) + g(x), g'(x) =/= 0. Now the next step is to determine where it may intersect the hyperbola f, and the corresponding condition for this reads as 1/t = -t/(g'(x)) + x/(g'(x)) + g(x) or equivalently (t^2)/(g'(x)) - (x/(g'(x)) + g(x))*t + 1 = 0 or t^2 - (x + g(x)*g'(x))*t + g'(x) = 0. Now one can apply the quadratic formula (or equivalently the pq formula) to solve this for the variable t to end up with t_{1,2}(x)= (1/2)*( (x+g(x)*g'(x)) -+ sqrt( (x + g(x)*g'(x))^2 -4*g'(x) ) ). Now we want that the distance between (t_{1}(x),1/t_{1}(x)) and (x,g(x)) is the same as the distance between (t_{2}(x),1/t_{2}(x)) and (x,g(x)), but instead (for simplicity) we can also compare the squared distances. The squared first distance is given by the expression (t_{1}(x))^2 - 2*t_{1}(x)*x + x^2 + 1/(t_{1}(x)^2) - 2*(1/t_{1}(x))*g(x) + g(x)^2 and the second squared distance analogously: (t_{2}(x))^2 - 2*t_{2}(x)*x + x^2 + 1/(t_{2}(x)^2) - 2*(1/t_{2}(x))*g(x) + g(x)^2. For their difference we get 2*g(x)*(1/t_{2}(x) - 1/t_{2}(x)) + 2*x*(t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x)) = t_{2}(x)^2 - t_{1}(x)^2 + 1/(t_{2}(x)^2) - 1/(t_{1}(x)^2). Now we can make a few observations on some of the expressions to shorten them: t_{1}(x)*t_{2}(x) = (1/4)*( (x + g(x)*g'(x))^2 - (x + g(x)*g'(x))^2 + 4*g'(x) ) = g'(x), 1/t_{2}(x) - 1/t_{2}(x) = (t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x))/(t_{1}(x)*t_{2}(x)) = (t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x))/g'(x), 1/(t_{2}(x)^2) - 1/(t_{1}(x)^2) = (t_{1}(x)^2 - t_{2}(x)^2)/((t_{1}(x)*t_{2}(x))^2) = (t_{1}(x)^2 - t_{2}(x)^2)/(g'(x)^2). Now if we multiply both sides of the equation for the equality of the 2 distances with g'(x)^2 and insert the above abbreviations for the corresponding expressions that appear in there, we get 2*g(x)*g'(x)*(t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x)) + 2*x*(t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x))*g'(x)^2 = (t_{2}(x)^2 - t_{1}(x)^2)*g'(x)^2 + (t_{1}(x)^2 - t_{2}(x)^2) Now we can substitute some more expressions as follows, t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x) = - sqrt( (x + g(x)*g'(x))^2 - 4*g'(x) ) t_{1}(x)^2 - t_{2}(x)^2 = -(x + g(x)*g'(x)) * sqrt( (x + g(x)*g'(x))^2 - 4*g'(x) ) = (x + g(x)*g'(x))*(t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x)), and insert the latter one to get 2*g(x)*g'(x)*(t_{1}(x) - t_{2}(x)) + x*(t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x))*g'(x)^2 = (t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x))*g(x)*g'(x)^3 + (t_{1}(x)^2 - t_{2}(x)^2), (x*g'(x)^2 - 2*g(x)*g'(x))*(t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x)) = (g(x)*g'(x)^3 - x - g(x)*g'(x))*(t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x)). Since we need the 2 intersection points to be different, we require (t_{2}(x) - t_{1}(x)) =/= 0 and can take this factor out of the equation to end up with x*g'(x)^2 - 2*g(x)*g'(x) = g(x)*g'(x)^3 - x - g(x)*g'(x), 0 = g(x)*g'(x)^3 - x + g(x)*g'(x) - x*g'(x)^2 = g(x)*g'(x)*(1 + g'(x)^2) - x*(1 + g'(x)^2) = (1 + g'(x)^2)*(g(x)*g'(x) - x). Since the first factor cannot be equal to 0, we can take it out and are finally only anymore left with the condition 0 = g(x)*g'(x) - x for all x within some (to be determined) region, which has the form of a first-order, nonlinear ODE for which e.g. Wolfram Alpha provides the general solution, g_{c}(x) = sqrt(c+x^2), for any real-valued constant c, aswell as a negative branch which though doesn't correspond to what we are looking for. So this is the 1-parameter set of solutions, and to determine the region in which they are defined, one can set 1/t = sqrt(c+t^2) with t > 0, or respectively t^4 + c*t^2 - 1 = 0. The quadratic formula then provides the starting point T_{c} = (1/2)*(sqrt(c^2 + 4) - c), so we have g_{c}: ]T_{c},+infinity[ -> |R, x |-> g_{c}(x) := sqrt(c+x^2). Here's a screenshot of what plots of these ''axial'' symmetry curves (with respect to the right branch of the function f(x)=1/x) look like for different values of c: All of them asymptotically approximate the identity function for x to +infinity. For negative c they start below and for positive c above it. Notice that if the curve lies above the graph of the identity function, it is closer to the upper left part of the graph of the hyperbola, and to make up for this, the slope (or derivative) at every point on the graph is smaller than 1 but converges to 1 as the curve proceeds to the far right.
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Skilled player (1534)
Joined: 7/25/2007
Posts: 299
Location: UK
You can see a demonstration of the n=4 and n=3 cases here: Link to video
Aran_Jaeger
He/Him
Banned User, Player (9)
Joined: 10/29/2014
Posts: 176
Location: Bavaria, Germany
That is a nice video, Flip. When I saw the bald guy in there with the red clothes, he reminded me of someone that I had seen before, so I checked another video, and indeed, he took part in this World Science Festival discussion :) Link to video
collect, analyse, categorise. "Mathematics - When tool-assisted skills are just not enough" ;) Don't want to be taking up so much space adding to posts, but might be worth mentioning and letting others know for what games 1) already some TAS work has been done (ordered in decreasing amount, relative to a game completion) by me and 2) I am (in decreasing order) planning/considering to TAS them. Those would majorly be SNES games (if not, it will be indicated in the list) I'm focusing on. 1) Spanky's Quest; On the Ball/Cameltry; Musya; Super R-Type; Plok; Sutte Hakkun; The Wizard of Oz; Battletoads Doubledragon; Super Ghouls'n Ghosts; Firepower 2000; Brain Lord; Warios Woods; Super Turrican; The Humans. 2) Secret Command (SEGA); Star Force (NES); Hyperzone; Aladdin; R-Type 3; Power Blade 2 (NES); Super Turrican 2; First Samurai. (last updated: 18.03.2018)
Editor, Skilled player (1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Consider a circular town of radius 1 mile. You want to build a 1 mile length road inside this town. What is the smallest d for which you can build a road so that every point inside the town is at most d miles away from the street?
Revisiting BrunoVisnadi's problem, we assume that the road is connected (otherwise you could use a measure-zero set). A circular road centered in the middle of the town with radius 1/(2pi) would give d=1-1/(2pi)≈0.841. Since the road doesn't need to enclose an area, we can do better than that, by breaking the circle as below: Here, d is the distance we want every point in the town to be within the road, r=1-d is the radius of the inner circle, P is a point on the edge of the town (here oriented at the top of the circle), and PA and PB are tangent lines to the inner circle. Then the road is formed by the arc AB (away from P) joined to the line segments from A and B toward P up to a distance of d away from P. The length of PA and PB are each sqrt(1-r2), and so the length of the road is: r(2π-2θ) + 2(sqrt(1-r2)-(1-r)) = 2r(π-θ+1) + 2sqrt(1-r2) - 2. Since cos(θ)=r and r=1-d, this becomes: 2(1-d)(π-cos-1(1-d)) + 2sqrt(2d-d2) - 2d. Using WolframAlpha, when the above is set to 1, you get d≈0.812. I checked some of the star-like configurations that Aran Jaeger suggested, but I couldn't do any better than this road with them, even with other values for d or length of road. Now if you use d=0.5, you get 2π/3 - 1 + sqrt(3) ≈ 2.826. So in the case of general d, this method works for any length up to about 45% of the town's outer boundary. Beyond that, the question becomes complicated since now you need the road to cover the center of the town. All I know that, in the limiting case where d→0, parallel lines spaced 2d apart ensure that each point in the town is within d of some line. In this system, a road of length x is in proportion to an area of 2dx, the ratio of road to area being 1/(2d). So, given a circular town of radius 1, the length of the road required for some d close to 0 approaches 1/(2d) * 2π = π/d.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The youtuber blackpenredpen showed in his latest video how to calculate the integral from 0 to 1 of sin(ln(x))/ln(x) dx. While the final answer is relatively simple, calculating it looked quite challenging.
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
x = e^(-u) dx = - e^(-u)du Substituting this you get the integral from 0 to infty of e^(-u)(sin u)/u, this is easily done using a Feynman trick. First integrate from 0 to infty the function e^(ku)sin(u), you can do it using the Euler formula for the sine. It's just 1/(1+k²). Now, if you integrate with respect to k, and substitute k=-1 you get the integral you want. Integrating 1/(1+k²) you get arctan(k)+c. Since it must vanish when k is -infty, c must be pi/2. Substituting k=-1 you obtain pi/4 for the original integral. These integrals are not very hard, really. Although the calculations are lengthy, once you know the basic reductions from one type of integral to another (and more precisely, how it's possible that the definite integral has a closed value, even if the indefinite one doesn't), the sequence of operations is pretty logical.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
p4wn3r wrote:
x = e^(-u) dx = - e^(-u)du Substituting this you get the integral from 0 to infty of e^(-u)(sin u)/u, this is easily done using a Feynman trick.
You skipped the step of explaining why the range 0 to 1 becomes 0 to inf with that substitution, and I don't immediately see it. (I remember blackpenredpen dealing with this in some other videos, explaining how the new range is calculated, but unfortunately I don't remember anymore.)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
Oh, sure. It goes like this. You have the variable x, which you must integrate from 0 to 1, and you make the substitution x=e^(-u). Now, when x=0, the value of u that "satisfies the equation" is u=infty. (Being pedantic, infinity is not a number, to be 100% rigorous you have to treat it as an improper integral and apply the right theorems.) When x=1, the equation is satisfied for u=0. So the range that was 0->1 becomes infty->0. When you make the other substitutions you get a minus sign. You can eliminate this minus sign by swapping the range to 0->infty, because the integral from a to b is the opposite of the integral from b to a.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Dealing with and solving equations was a staple in high school math class. When you have "something = something", you can mostly perform operations on that easily and with your eyes closed. What wasn't taught much in high school, or even university (at least where I have been in both cases), was how to handle inequalities. Inequalities are a lot trickier, and need much more careful attention. Yet I have never been taught any sort of rules or heuristics on how to deal with them properly (in the same way as with equations). If you have "something < something", simply squaring both sides might or might not require switching that inequality around (and, perhaps, might even require splitting the statement into two, with two different ranges, I think). After all, if you had something like "-2 < 1", squaring both sides would require switching the inequality, but "-1 < 2" would not. Heck, if you have "-1 < 1", squaring both sides would require you to change the symbol to "=". Thus if you have "x < y" can you even square both sides? Do you need to split the expression into three, with their own domains? Solving something like "x2-2x-3 > 0" becomes less trivial than if it had been "=0". I'm wondering if there are rules and heuristics for all this. It seems to be a much less talked and taught topic. (I suppose I'm not asking or challenging anything here, so this is, technically speaking, "off topic" of sorts for this thread. Just speaking out loud. Anyway.)
Player (42)
Joined: 12/27/2008
Posts: 873
Location: Germany
The reason that from a = b, you can derive f(a)=f(b) is a consequence of the definition of a function. By definition, once you apply the same argument to the same function you get the same value. So, if you start from a = b you can arrive at a²=b² or sqrt(a)=sqrt(b). Notice, though, that depending on the domain you are working with, you cannot go from a²=b² to a=b. That is true if you can guarantee that a and b are both positive or both negative, but if you allow both to be general reals it's not true. Why? Because to go from f(a)=f(b) to a=b you need to apply the inverse function f⁻¹. So, f(a)=f(b) => f⁻¹(f(a))=f⁻¹(f(b)) => a=b. Not every function has an inverse. To define a function you need to specify the domain, only the algebraic law is not enough. In the case of f(x)=x², if the domain is the set of real numbers, it does not admit an inverse. But if the domain is just x<0 or just x>0 it does. To apply the same reasoning to inequalities, you need more assumptions. The function needs to be strictly monotonic (it either just increases or just decreases). If it is strictly increasing, you keep the sign, if it is strictly decreasing you flip it. For example, if you have a > b (real numbers), it does not follow that sin a > sin b, because the sine function is not strictly monotonic, but it does follow that -a < -b, because f(x)=-x in this domain is strictly decreasing. However, if both a and b are between 0 and pi/2, it is correct to say that a > b => sin a > sin b. Because of this, you must be extremely careful with the function domain when you work with inequalities, much more than with equalities. Now, for the example you provided, it is solved by factoring the polynomial: x²-2x-3 = (x+1)(x-3) > 0 Now, if x < -1, then both factors are negative and their product positive. If x > 3, both factors are positive and the product also positive. If -1<x<3, the first factor is negative and the second positive, so the product is negative. Therefore, this inequality holds when x<-1 or x>3. If you have an inequality f(x)>0, and f(x) is a continuous function, the work of finding where it's valid is not usually much more complicated than finding all the roots. If the roots are all single points, you can break up the domain in different ranges between these roots. The values in these ranges will always have the same sign (that follows from the intermediate value theorem, if it changed the sign, there would be a new root in that range). So, if you can find the sign of a value in each of these ranges, all other values at that range will have the same sign, and you have solved the problem.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Thank you for the explanation.
Editor, Skilled player (1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Here's an interesting Riddler Classic problem this week:
The Riddler wrote:
You have a gate that requires a passcode to open. There are 10 buttons: the digits 0 to 9. You have forgotten the passcode, but you remember it has four digits. You have no choice but to try them all. Since there are \(10^4\) = 10,000 four-digit passcodes, you might think this would take you 40,000 button presses to guarantee an opened gate. However, this gate’s keypad never resets: The gate opens as soon as the last four buttons you’ve pressed are the correct code, so you can be more efficient. For example, you can try two different codes by pressing just five buttons: The combination “12345” tries both “1234” and “2345.” Of course, pressed for time, you want to press as few buttons as possible while still trying different codes and eventually opening the gate. So the question is: What’s the smallest number of buttons you need to press to make sure you open the gate — i.e., that you’ve tried every possible four-digit combination?
Note: Passcodes can have leading 0s. This one may be challenging. It may be easier to try smaller cases, say, passcodes of length n over a set of k symbols; this problem is then n=4 and k=10. There are actually a few questions that can be answered, such as: What is the smallest number you need to press, is it possible to prove this (easily), and is there a simple algorithm to generate the sequence that you should try?