Lost solution
Sort:
YouAreHaveStupid
Feb 9, 2017
0
#121
[COMMENT DELETED]
kesie wrote:
Hello, i am new in thuis discussion. As i see it the hands are 2 times a day at equal distance. Thuis is at 12 o clock.
Or do i not understand the question correct?
Or do i not understand the question correct?
Did you look at the puzzle's accompanying illustration?
A proper solution would need to provide (among other things) an answer to the question of what time is displayed by the pictured clock.
sameez1 wrote:
@ Mr_Edt please read post #34
Yes,44 minutes and 24 seconds (i also got this number).But i got the order of hands are hour,minute and second in clockwise direction.To get hands order of hour,second,and minute as the initial position,we need more than one hour time period.As i have stated in my previous post,the answer is depend on the precise meaning of the puzzle.
@ cobra91 lol How do you arrive at a profit when you don't know how much he has invested in the bike?What did the bike cost him in the first place?Did somebody give it to him?I do not want to start another argument, I am trying to articulate my opinion which I think your post kind of helps.We could argue forever,and someone else could come with a different intelligent argument.I think that is the puzzle.
sameez1 wrote:
@ cobra91 lol How do you arrive at a profit when you don't know how much he has invested in the bike?What did the bike cost him in the first place?Did somebody give it to him?I do not want to start another argument, I am trying to articulate my opinion which I think your post kind of helps.We could argue forever,and someone else could come with a different intelligent argument.I think that is the puzzle.
Either you didn't properly read my comment, or you simply failed to understand it. There is no additional room for argument or subjectivity, because I've already demonstrated (in post #122) that the profit depends on how we choose to define the bicycle's value. The value of the bike can be validly defined in any of the 3 ways I mentioned, or (if you really want to be a pest) one can insist on defining it based on how the bike was initially obtained. Of course, this would be an utterly pointless (and somewhat annoying) definition to use, since the bike could have been earned in numerous ways, most of which do not involve something as convenient as a simple monetary payment.
@ Mr_Edt As i have stated in my previous post,the answer is depend on the precise meaning of the puzzle....That is what I am trying to say.We all seem to agree in a peculiar sort of way.
sameez1 wrote:
@ Mr_Edt please read post #34
Missed this, as the comments here are now flooding in faster than they do on most celebrities' Twitter feeds. 
It looks like you were, indeed, well ahead of Mr_Edt with this particular suggestion. However, I've already pointed out (in post #29) that Loyd's diagram fits Dale's solution better than it fits yours (each hand is only ~1 degree short of the '3'/'7'/'11', not ~6 degrees short of those numbers).
@ cobra91 ..mentioned, or (if you really want to be a pest) one can insist on defining it based on how the bike was initially obtained. Of course, this would be an utterly pointless (and somewhat annoying) definition to use, since the bike could have been earned in numerous ways, most of which do not involve something as convenient as a simple monetary payment. Sounds like the economic model our government is currently using.That pesty how much did it cost in the first place.What difference does it make?
sameez1 wrote:
@ Mr_Edt As i have stated in my previous post,the answer is depend on the precise meaning of the puzzle....That is what I am trying to say.We all seem to agree in a peculiar sort of way.
Sometime the esay question contain an ambiguity.
sameez1 wrote:
Sounds like the economic model our government is currently using.That pesty how much did it cost in the first place.What difference does it make?
Well, context is everything. If the original cost (assuming it was even as simple as a monetary payment) is truly unknowable, then it's unknowable (and therefore useless). The profits I was referring to were all relative to the earliest known situation in the context of the puzzle, and so they are all accurate in that context. It's always theoretically possible to go back one step further, but in practice it always becomes impossible at some point.
On the other hand, perhaps you have some incredible insights here which mere mortals like myself can only dream of. If you can prove the bike had an initial cost (as opposed to having been won in a contest or raffle, or having been found in a park or abandoned lot), as well as exactly what that cost was, then please... enlighten us! 
@ cobra91 ..Missed this, as the comments here are now flooding in faster than they do on most celebrities' Twitter feeds. LOL
The dealer ends up with one bicycle less, but 55 dollars more, than what he started with. So the "profit" depends on how we define the true value of the bicycle. If we define that value based on the first sale, then the profit is 5 dollars. If we instead base the value on the cost of buying back the bicycle, then the profit is 15 dollars. Finally, if the bicycle's true value is defined by the second sale, then the profit is 10 dollars.
In summary, it all boils down to one's choice of formal definitions....So which one is it? If they are all accurate then what is the puzzle? No I don't have an insight of the initial cost my point exactly. The word profit is there.If you had an initial cost could you then pick one of these?
cobra91 wrote:
sameez1 wrote:
@ Mr_Edt please read post #34
Missed this, as the comments here are now flooding in faster than they do on most celebrities' Twitter feeds.
It looks like you were, indeed, well ahead of Mr_Edt with this particular suggestion. However, I've already pointed out (in post #29) that Loyd's diagram fits Dale's solution better than it fits yours (each hand is only ~1 degree short of the '3'/'7'/'11', not ~6 degrees short of those numbers).
Firstly, we have to look at diagram carefully.If diagram in post #1 is not clear enough,we could see in post #40.Yes it seems the hands movement is so subtle.We see the minute hand haven't pass 11 notch.The hour hand haven't pass 3 notch (even the number line pointing straight to 3 notch).The second hand haven't pass 7 notch.So,by the raw calculation,it haven't reached 3 o'clock.That diagram still shows time at 02:54:34 with second part could be more subtle.
The precise answer depend on the clock gear subtlety.But the previous answer would be sufficient for approximation.
On "the trader's profit":
The Cobra is right on this one though I wouldn't call it a matter of formal definitions. The whole scenario consists of 3 transactions. After the first 2 the dealer has indeed a $10 profit. Had the scenario started after transaction 1 then the profit for the transactions 2 and 3 only would be $5 indeed. But the profit for all the transaction 1 to 3 together is simply undefined by the absence of essential information (the value of the bike). A similar thing could be said about the clock puzzle but in the "trader's profit" it is intentional while not in the clock puzzle (I believe).
To understand puzzles like "the trader's profit" you should always create scenarios with some extreme values like "the value of the bike is $10,000" and "the value of the bike is $0". Then you will see that the value of the bike matters for the transactions 1-3 but not for the transactions 1-2 or 2-3. Walk through the transactions one by one with the extreme values and you will see what is really going on. You can also do it with the formula's:
Profit (T1-2) = (-x+50) + (+x-40) = 10
Profit (T2-3) = (+x-40) + (-x+45) = 5
Profit (T1-3) = (-x+50) + (+x-40) + (-x+45) = -x +55 (undefined if x is unknown)
0
#134
Mr_Edt wrote:
@n95311. It is assuming the clock is a ticking clock type which have 60 ticks in one clock cycle.The minute hand won't be moved until the second hand have reached 60 ticks.
I gather your solution was based on a watch in which the second hand moves once a second and the minute and hour hands each move once a minute when the second hand passes 60. I agree that for such a watch, you found a time at which the hands have the same separation as in the starting position. But the time 1/2 second after the start is also such a time, because none of the hands will have moved at all.
For me, a solution is less appealing if it requires a type of watch that has never been made, but that is a purely subjective opinion.
@ cobra91 and Arisktotle I officially give up I hope. I have a puzzle that I suspect might be a famous puzzle It is white take back its move and then checkmate by Vladamir Nabokov
I would post this under more puzzles if not.
Easy:
@ cobra91 Iwas sure you could solve it I am asking is it familiar to you, is it worth posting under more puzzles.
n9531l schreef:
RubenHogenhout wrote:
The angles are exactly the same because I rotated! Yes I am sure this is the solution..... It is clearly 1 hour 5 minutes and 5 seconds. All arms are precisley an unit of 5 further.
If you get to the time you propose by letting the clock run instead of by rotating the face, all the hands cannot be precisely a unit of 5 further along. The hour hand moves exactly 1/12 of a complete rotation in exactly one hour. At your proposed time, the second hand will be 1/12 of a rotation ahead of the starting time, but the hour hand will be more than 1/12 of a rotation ahead, since more than one hour has elapsed. So the angular separation of the second and hour hands will be smaller than at the starting time.
In other words, rotating the face is not a valid way of predicting exactly where the hands will be at some future time, since it ignores the different rates at which the hands move.
It's true that at your proposed time, most people would agree that the hands appear equally spaced. But it's not likely to be the solution, because there's an earlier time at which the hands are even closer to being equally spaced, namely at a time close to 3:37:58.
I said "close to" because I'm assuming the second hand moves continuously and not in one second ticks, and the optimum time for most nearly equal spacing will not occur at a whole number of seconds. For the starting position, the optimum time to the nearest millisecond is 2:54:34.548. This is probably the time Loyd intended to represent in his picture. For the time you have proposed, the optimum is 3:59:39.945, and for the earlier time I mentioned the optimum is 3:37:57.966. This earlier time gives more nearly equal spacing than your proposed time, whether you use whole or fractional seconds.
(Note: All the above assumes a watch whose hands all point straight up at every noontime and all of whose hands move continuously.)
Ok you are right mirroring I did not thought of!
In this case the earlier time is the result if I mirror the starting postion.
You get the following picture. 
0
#140
sameez1 wrote:
@ cobra91 Iwas sure you could solve it I am asking is it familiar to you, is it worth posting under more puzzles.
Here's an article about the puzzle you posted.
http://www.faena.com/aleph/articles/vladimir-nabokovs-18-chess-problems/
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.