Monday Madness

Jimbo1

I dowanna debate all week. Monday Madness is your realm, TomK. You get the final say.

So do we get our 5 minuets worth? Anyhow about the puzzle, that looks to be an answer from Star Trek, or as Spock would say it illogical. Jimbo1

Anyhow about the puzzle, that looks to be an answer from Star Trek, or as Spock would say it illogical.

No it isn't.

Anyhow about the puzzle, that looks to be an answer from Star Trek, or as Spock would say it illogical.

No it isn't.

Sterilize, Sterilize, error error, need input

I did loads of working out and then gave up. Here is some hints to help others though. There are 35 square's worth in the puzzle which equals 8 and 3/4 squares each. 3/4 might sound impossible to do but it is fairly simple to make if you think about it (idk how to get them all the same however). Basically, you'd connect them like below (the top is 3/4 and the bottom is 1/4) [Ignore the dots, they are to get it into shape o—-o ..\…| o.\..o ….\.| o….o

Welcome Mr. Bean, The solution appears in post #20. The "trick" is that no where in the criteria did it state that the property was to be divided evenly. All the Will required was that each parcel was to have the same shape. Not look similiar, not be the same size, … just have the same shape.

yes i can describe both c and d in the same words, because they are the same shape. the shape is 4 lines when drawn will connect at their ends to two other lines forming a corner at each end, when the last line is drawn it will bring you back to the starting point of the first line drawn, all opposing lines must be parallel, opposing lines must be the same length, top and bottom lines must be longer than the sides, so when finished will get a shape that looks like a an olympic swimming pool viewed from above. if i asked you to draw a car, i'd bet most would draw the same shape we drew as kids that we all see as being a car, long front, long back, raised middle with 2 circles for wheels towards each end. the proportions wouldn't be the same yet they would all be the same car shape. the word i think that could be debated more is not actually shape but the one preceding it "same" does same mean similar or does it mean exact. if it means exact then in what way, ratio or identical? if it means similar then when do things start/stop looking similar?

Dictionary definition… but sounds reasonable to me:

same adj : Conforming in every detail

top and bottom lines must be longer than the sides,

a pretty vague description.

Obviously there is a disconnect between what a shape is and how "shape" is often used. Many objects can be said to be shaped like a bowl, or even to have a bowl shape. This does not mean that all bowls have the same shape.

All squares have the same shape. All circles have the same shape. All equilateral triangles have the same shape. All pentagrams have the same shape. All "Star of David" have the same shape.

All rectangles do not have the same shape. All ovals do not have the same shape. All isosceles triangles do not have the same shape. All "stars" do not have the same shape.

A shape does not have "dimensions". It is not dependent on scale, color, orientation… whatever. It is the relationship between the components…. ie: the number of "corners", the angles between components, the ratio between components relative to each other.

A "mirror image" does not necessarily have the same shape as the original. It is "equal but opposite" and will not have the same shape unless it is symmetrical.

a pretty vague description.

is olympic swimming pool shape when seen from above vague? everyone would draw a rectangle with similar dimensions that looked the same even if the proportions weren't correct or identical. you asked to describe the shape without using proportions or measurements if i understood your post and i think that does.

if we go by the dictionary definition of same :- Conforming in every detail
meaning identical.

then that would make the answer wrong,
after all they are not identical and do not conform in every detail,
obvious difference is the side lengths are not the same in both the larger and smaller shape.
proportionately they might be the same but that still doesn't make them the same.

A shape does not have "dimensions". It is not dependent on scale, color, orientation… whatever. It is the relationship between the components…. ie: the number of "corners", the angles between components, the ratio between components relative to each other.

isn't that a contradiction to what you first argued when you said to be the same the ratios must match? if a shape doesn't have dimensions or is independent of scale then why does the ratio of the lines matter? ie. length

is olympic swimming pool shape when seen from above vague? everyone would draw a rectangle

I agree. Most everyone would draw a rectangle… but all rectangles are not the same shape. A rectangle could be a square. It could be "thin" like a ruler. It could be "fat" like a playing card. All three of these examples are rectangles… each is a different shape.

if we go by the dictionary definition of same :- Conforming in every detail
meaning identical.

Correct. to be the same shape… the shapes must be identical.

isn't that a contradiction to what you first argued when you said to be the same the ratios must match? if a shape doesn't have dimensions or is independent of scale then why does the ratio of the lines matter? ie. length

Nope. Length only identifies a relationship at a given scale. Remember… shape is not scale dependent.

Let's try an example of drawings meant to represent a star.
[external image: Posted Image]
One is a pentagram. It would be a pentagram if it was 1/2 the size that it appears on your screen or if it were 127 times larger than it appears on your screen. The second drawing… could be described as a star…. but it isn't a pentagram. If you reduced this picture so they appeared on the screen as 1/100th the size you are seeing now… you might still "see" them as star shaped and might not be able to tell the difference in them with your naked eye…. but they will never be the same shape.

I agree. Most everyone would draw a rectangle… but all rectangles are not the same shape. A rectangle could be a square. It could be "thin" like a ruler. It could be "fat" like a playing card. All three of these examples are rectangles… each is a different shape.

yes rectangles are not all the same shape, but there is only one rectangle shape that looks like an olympic swimming pool.

Correct. to be the same shape… the shapes must be identical.

that means your answer is wrong then given the terms of the will and same meaning identical.

Nope. Length only identifies a relationship at a given scale. Remember… shape is not scale dependent.

that would mean the answer in post 17 is correct then they do all have the same shape.

but they will never be the same shape.

if they are both star shaped, then wouldn't that mean that yes indeed they are the same shape? ie. star.
no they'd never be the same/identical, both pentagrams.
but as for the shape alone then yes they are the same, star.
as you've stated a few times shape has nothing to do with ratio's, dimensions or scale.

yes rectangles are not all the same shape, but there is only one rectangle shape that looks like an olympic swimming pool. wink.gif

Nope. An Olympic sized swimming pool only defines it's length as 50 meters. It describes a length. Not a shape.

that means your answer is wrong then given the terms of the will and same meaning identical.

I don't follow you. The will stipulated that they were to be the same (identical shape). Not similar looking shapes.

that would mean the answer in post 17 is correct then they do all have the same shape.

Not even close but you obviously want to make sure you get the whole 30 minutes.

if they are both star shaped, then wouldn't that mean that yes indeed they are the same shape? ie. star.

Calling something a star no more defines it's shape than does calling something a rectangle, or a bowl, or a car. They are a general, rough, description. Not a definition of a shape.

as you've stated a few times shape has nothing to do with ratio's, dimensions or scale. wink.gif

I have never said that defining a shape has nothing to do with ratio's. The relationship between elements relative to each other has everything to do with ratios and directionality.

I don't follow you. unsure.gif The will stipulated that they were to be the same (identical shape). Not similar looking shapes.

for something to be identical then they have to be exact in all ways, that would include length/area etc.

Calling something a star no more defines it's shape than does calling something a rectangle, or a bowl, or a car. They are a general, rough, description. Not a definition of a shape.

actually yes calling something a star shape does define it's shape, just because it's a general rough description doesn't mean it's not a definition of a shape.
i agree it'd be useless for any engineering or detailed application but that still doesn't alter the fact it's defining a shape,
now if your somebody who didn't know a star shape was similar to a pentagram then yes it's a useless definition of the shape.

I have never said that defining a shape has nothing to do with ratio's. The relationship between elements relative to each other has everything to do with ratios and directionality.

you can't have a ratio without dimensions, length is a dimension. so if a shape doesn't have dimensions then it can't have a ratio. so yes you have said ratios don't come into shape.
so yes post 17 was correct. they are all the same shape.

but my answer in post 22 is the most correct answer because the shapes are identical..

anyway getting back to the important stuff how do you put those pic's in you posts?