lateral thinking (1 Viewer)

[Dumbarse]

alright, you have 2 pieces of rope, you know that each rope takes an hour to burn
they are not at all uniform (ie. can be fat at one end and skinny at another)
that is, burning a rope 1/4 of its length does not take 15 minutes

how would you measure 45 minutes exactly??

 

[utopia_parkway]

Light one rope at both ends, and the other rope at just one end. When the rope that is lite both ends reaches the middle it will be 30mins so then light the other rope at the other not burening end. when the two burns meant on the seconde rope it will be 45mins.

 

[Dumbarse]

nup but close

 

[Slidey]

utopia: you assumed what you were told was NOT the case: that burning 1/4 of the rope takes15 minutes.

 

[Slidey]

After much cogitation, I have the answer:

Use your stopwatch.

 

[withoutaface]

alright, you have 2 pieces of rope, you know that each rope takes an hour to burn
they are not at all uniform (ie. can be fat at one end and skinny at another)
that is, burning a rope 1/4 of its length does not take 15 minutes

how would you measure 45 minutes exactly??

Take one rope, burn it at both ends, that gives you half an hour, then take the other rope, slice it lengthwise and burn one of those slices at both ends to make 45 mins.

If I come up with a more sensible solution I'll post it.

 

[Slidey]

^ Yea, tha solution still presumes that the rope is only non-uniform in certain orientations. Example: what if one sides of the rope had a nick out of it which the other side didn't?

 

[Ziff]

^ Yea, tha solution still presumes that the rope is only non-uniform in certain orientations. Example: what if one sides of the rope had a nick out of it which the other side didn't?

If you set both pieces of rope alight from opposite ends when the two flames meet won't that be halfway and hence 30minutes?

They won't meet in the middle, they might meet elsewhere but if they're both burning, whereever the flames meet will be the centre?

 

[Slidey]

That is fine. But I speak of the other rope.

 

[utopia_parkway]

no you are all wrong and i am right. if you lite one rope at both ends it will meet in the middle after 30mins, no matter what the ropes are like. that means that the other rope you lite at one end will have 30mins burning left when that other rope meets in the middle. so if you light the other end of that rope after 30mins each end of the rope will burn for an eqail time before the might, and as there is 30mins of burning left there will both meet after they have done 15mins each, so you have the first 30 plus the seconed 15 =45mins.

 

[utopia_parkway]

utopia: you assumed what you were told was NOT the case: that burning 1/4 of the rope takes15 minutes.

no i did not, you are stupid. if you lite both ends at the same time they will meet when both ends have burn the same amount of time. thus each rope will burn for 30mins each. they might not meet in the middle but i never said they would.

for example lets just say that they didn't meet after 30mins and they ment after 40mins say that would mean that each said would have burn 40 mins each before meeting making the totle burning time 1hour and 20mins and as that cant be the case they cant meet after 40 mins. thus they can only meet after 30mins.

 

[Slidey]

omg i am rite and u r rong!

mummy he disagreed with me! awww

 

[SeDaTeD]

Utopia is correct in his method. Each rope has 60 min of burning. Using two flames at both ends of one rope would burn the first rope in 30 mins, as Utopia said. The other rope would have 30 min of burning left, thus lighting it at the other end shall give you the required 15 min.
However, this does not guarantee the rope flames will meet at the MIDDLE, it only means the flames will consume the rope in 30 minutes. Where they meet does not matter anyway.

 

[Dumbarse]

yeh utopia was right
started a good argument but saying that he wasnt
good way to seperate the 'thinkers' who will go well = utopia
compared to the rote learning numnuts = anyone who disagreed

 

[KeypadSDM]

yeh utopia was right
started a good argument but saying that he wasnt
good way to seperate the 'thinkers' who will go well = utopia
compared to the rote learning numnuts = anyone who disagreed

Nice way to save face. I just read the thread and by the third post I wanted to slap you for stupidity on asking a question you didn't know the answer to.

 

[grammar_police]

After much cogitation, I have the answer:

Use your stopwatch.

Despite the fact that your post was inane to say the least (Crap, for those of you vainly struggling for the word "Inane") your grammar was perfect. Well done!

I feel I must say, off the record, you're a moron.

Good day, citizen.

 

[Slidey]

I feel empowered.

 

[Archman]

Yeah, you are the unofficial moron of the forum.

 

[withoutaface]

Yeah, you are the unofficial moron of the forum.

The village idiot as it were.

 

[Rorix]

Despite the fact that your post was inane to say the least (Crap, for those of you vainly struggling for the word "Inane") your grammar was perfect. Well done!

I feel I must say, off the record, you're a moron.

Good day, citizen.

it should be "crap", not "Crap" and "inane" not "Inane", plus there should be a comma between least and your. I think there's some other mistakes there but that's what I got on the first run.