Nice!1 they have a multi way chat and they can do this because they can multi task.
Nice!
Of course not!Is this actually the answer?
Yes, you can certainly do it via a simplex approach, as anyone familiar with differential forms would have seen (I'm guessing from your replies you're such a person). However, this is a little fiddly, as the general approach is going to go into how you would do a general decomposition. Even when considering the 2d case, ie the area of a convex quadrilateral, its not a very elegant route, in my opinion (though its applications to differential geometry are elegant).Split it into 3-simplices (or n-simplices). I don't know if I'd class that as vaguely accessible though!
Here is a very hard problem that doesn't require any advanced mathematical techniques to solve, just a huuuuge brain!
There are N>3 gossiping women and each of them knows some item of gossip not known to the others. They talk to each other via the telephone and in each conversation they tell each other all they know at that point in time. What is the minimum number of phone calls required before each woman knows all the gossip.
So basically 2n-3![]()
The guy on the left made a $10 profit but the guy on the right paid $50
Well beauty is in the eye of the beholder I guess!Yes, you can certainly do it via a simplex approach, as anyone familiar with differential forms would have seen (I'm guessing from your replies you're such a person). However, this is a little fiddly, as the general approach is going to go into how you would do a general decomposition. Even when considering the 2d case, ie the area of a convex quadrilateral, its not a very elegant route, in my opinion (though its applications to differential geometry are elegant).
If you identify a diagonal you have identified a choice of triangulation - so I fail to see the advantage. But elegance is subjective so it's all a much of a much-ness.It might interest you to know (if you haven't checked) that the area of a convex quadrilateral can be expressed in terms of the norm of a cross product of the vectors defining the 'diagonals' of the quadrilateral. That's a general expression which doesn't involve breaking things into simplices.
Sounds like interesting very interesting work. But this exchange probably isn't too interesting for most readers!The method I came up with doesn't involve vector cross products but it does recover the component expression form. And it doesn't involve splitting the convex hull in question into 3-simplices. I don't know if the special case I described can be attacked in that manner in an elegant way but the general problem of the volume of a general convex hull is an open problem at present. My method, unsurprisingly, doesn't work for general convex hulls.
Amazingly, you are very close! The actual answer is 2N-4.N+(N-3)?
Edit: I used my fingers so could be crazily wrong![]()
Amazingly, you are very close! The actual answer is 2N-4.
I like the modification, but sadly the fingers would have to prove their guess is correct!The extra one is to take into account women going off topic and not getting to the point
Victory (sort of) to the fingers!
Incorrect I'm afraid. I really want to stress that the first problem is very, very difficult. A hint for the second problem:1) N>3 problem
upper bound is N-1 + N-2 + N-3 ...
probably the answer is 2(N-1)
2) spaghetti problem
the answer is a random value from 1 to 1000.
I like the modification, but sadly the fingers would have to prove their guess is correct!
Incorrect I'm afraid. I really want to stress that the first problem is very, very difficult.
I'm afraid it really is. The problem has been well known since around 70s, and most professional mathematicians would find it very difficult. The problem for n=4 can easily be done, as could n=5,6,7 etc. using brute force. But the question doesn't specify what n is - your proof must hold for any n belonging to the infinite set {4,5,6,7,8,....}.It's not really that difficult.
I'm afraid it really is. The problem has been well known since around 70s, and most professional mathematicians would find it very difficult. The problem for n=4 can easily be done, as could n=5,6,7 etc. using brute force. But the question doesn't specify what n is - your proof must hold for any n belonging to the infinite set {4,5,6,7,8,....}.
As I'm sure you can show (with your fingers?!), given any finite sequence A,B,C,D,...,E of numbers, there are infinitely many different functions such that f(1)=A, f(2)=B, f(3)=C and so on. So "spotting a pattern" will never constitute a proof, unless you can then go on to prove that your guess is correct for all numbers.See, that's what's wrong with mathematicians, you over complicate thingsI just came at it from a simple search pattern - then figure out the formula that matches the search!
![]()
Given any finite sequence of numbers there is infinitely many formulae which will reproduce that sequence.See, that's what's wrong with mathematicians, you over complicate thingsI just came at it from a simple search pattern - then figure out the formula that matches the search!
![]()