A Common Sense Test.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Hmm, not really. For instance, I can balance a salt shaker on its edge on a flat table. I won't say how, but i can.

A pinch of NaCl is all it requires.

Originally posted by Hockenberry
reply to post by chr0naut

 

More than one solution?

Yes, think alternate dimensions, superposition and wrapped onto various topologies and combinations of these three.

reply to post by jimmiec

4 coins each direction.

I don't think that's possible...

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Hmm, not really. For instance, I can balance a salt shaker on its edge on a flat table. I won't say how, but i can.

Yes, really.

Can you do this same "trick" with basketballs? Does it still make sense? Of course it doesn't.

The thing is that the "solution" to this puzzle isn't really a solution because like I said you don't have 4 coins in one "direction". You have a row of 3 coins one direction, a row of 3 coins another direction, and a row (stack) of coins in another direction.

This "trick" can't be done on paper...it can't be done in a 2D plane...it can't really even be done in the 3D plane without you distorting and really outright mis-using the word "direction".

I don't think it says anything about anyone who "gets" this trick...except that they fully don't understand 3D space.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by jimmiec

 

4 coins each direction.

I don't think that's possible...

Why not?

You have three coins going north to south on one plane, and the same two coins with another one going north to south on the other plane.

You can apply this same east to west.

reply to post by jimmiec


We are not taught to think in the way that would allow a large part of the population to get the answer very easily. I don't know whether it is a learned trait or a natural tendency but we place restrictions and rules on things that don't necessarily exist. When I either ask or solve one of these types of questions I've had people say something along the lines of "they didn't say you could do that". To which I normally reply that they didn't say I couldn't do either. A sin of omission if you will.

I do think some people are more naturally clever then others but I will also say that at some point either intentionally or by accident they learned to not just look at the obvious. Once you explain this principle to a person they begin to see how to solve some of these problems.

reply to post by unityemissions


But you don't have to move any of the coins for them to all be lined up in both directions.... do you?

They can all be lined up in their original cross pattern, can't they?

So why even move them? What is the point?

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I think you're taking my notion of a slight bend to the extreme, which you're free to do, and really, is there a point to anything without our perceiving there to be?

What is the point of either of us replying to each other?

We're bored.

reply to post by unityemissions

I think you're taking my notion of a slight bend to the extreme

On the contrary, I was merely stating that in the original cross pattern, the coins are already lined up.... so moving them is not even necessary to achieve the final stated goal....

what was the problem?

i don't get it. these kind of things were never my bag. or i'm stupid.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

Originally posted by jimmiec
Take six coins, line them up 4 one way, then put 1 on each side of the line of 4 coins. You will have 4 coins lined up one way and 3 coins lined up the other. A cross basically. Now move one coin and make it 4 coins each direction.

not getting you.

they're lined up in a cross. not as is stated for them to end. 4 in one direction, 3 in another. the end result must be 4 in each.

how are they lined up as such without a manipulation of the dimensions as is?

reply to post by unityemissions

how are they lined up as such without a manipulation of the dimensions as is?

Well, they are all lying flat on the table, for one...

And their sides are all lined up vertically, for the other...

So... moving them seems a moot point.

aah does it involve stacking a coin atop another?

reply to post by RoScoLaz

aah does it involve stacking a coin atop another?

No, it involves redefining "Line" to mean two coins in two rows that are both parallel.

Originally posted by RoScoLaz
aah does it involve stacking a coin atop another?

That is one solution.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


i see.




actually i don't. i think i'll stick to crosswords

Simplistic answer to a problem that could be over analyzed.
Occum's razor,anyone?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by RoScoLaz

 

aah does it involve stacking a coin atop another?

No, it involves redefining "Line" to mean two coins in two rows that are both parallel.

Look at a globe.

No redefining needed.

There was no mention of a "line" in the last sentence there was mention of "direction".

reply to post by unityemissions

There was no mention of a "line" there was mention of "direction".

From the OP:

Take six coins, line them up 4 one way, then put 1 on each side of the line of 4 coins. You will have 4 coins lined up one way and 3 coins lined up the other. A cross basically. Now move one coin and make it 4 coins each direction.

The word "line" occurs 4 times.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Well I'll just say you fail, because it was a test of common sense. Overthinking is fail.




No offense intended, mang.