What Are Your Best Mind-Boggling Questions?

[nitsuj]

Exactly Evo. The fact that something is a historical artefact does not automatically make it art.

And something made by an artist isn't necessarily art.

It's about the emotive response, and I think that's what DPA may have been referring to in the comparison between ancient artifacts & art.

I'll take some ancient tools, smash 'em up and make some art out of it.

DPA's digital picture of "art" turned ancient artifact is equal but opposite.

 

[Gokul43201]

Alice leaves her house and walks north for 5 km. Then she turns and walks west for 5 km. Then she turns south and walks 5 km, and is back at her house, where she started. How is this possible?

Something to do with this?

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_geometry[/color]

I bet Alice's toes are frozen.

It's obvious with all the hints. Clearly, Alice lives about 5(1+1/2nPi) miles south of the North Pole ;)

Edit: Looks like QC Roll'd me to it =(

 

[Gokul43201]

A cylindrical hole is drilled diametrically through a sphere. If the height of the cylindrical wall generated is L, what's the volume of the remaining material?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

 

[Borg]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

Teasing the blonde again?

 

[Evo]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

Like people said, he obviously didn't marry her for her mind.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

A cylindrical hole is drilled diametrically through a sphere. If the height of the cylindrical wall generated is L, what's the volume of the remaining material?

Doesn't that depend on the radius of the drill?

\frac{4}{3}πr^{2} - LπR^{2}
where r is the radius of the sphere, and 2R is the diameter of the drill bit?For that infinite grid resistor question, you need to start with 1 square of resistors R, consider it's resistance, then add iterative layers of squares and check formulate the question by series.

 

[Borg]

Like people said, he obviously didn't marry her for her mind.

Isn't she a legislator in Tennessee? Then again, probably not - she's smarter than that.

 

[emailanmol]

I have another one.

Suppose there are x players and you want to hold a singles tennis tournament amongst them in a fair way.

What is the minimum number of matches the tournament should consist of?

Post your logic.

P.S

Fair means that each player should lose to exit.
Also least amount of Bye should occur

 

[emailanmol]

Does someone have a link to the solution of infinite resistance network.?

 

[Borg]

How many pairs of shoes can one woman own?

I know, there isn't a solution because whatever the number, the answer is always one more.

 

[DragonPetter]

If a car is traveling at 80 miles per hour, how long will it take to go 80 miles?

Is this supposed to be so simple to confuse you of the obvious answer?

 

[Gokul43201]

Doesn't that depend on the radius of the drill?

The question is complete. Perhaps I can clarify a little bit by calling the cylindrical hole a cylindrical through-hole (think of the guy that's digging a tunnel through the center of the earth).

Your attempt (ignoring the typo in the formula for the volume of a sphere) is missing the volume of the two "polar caps" that are lost as well. And of course, it's relying on numbers not provided in the question.

 

[QuarkCharmer]

Does someone have a link to the solution of infinite resistance network.?

Yeah
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

Your attempt (ignoring the typo in the formula for the volume of a sphere) is missing the volume of the two "polar caps" that are lost as well. And of course, it's relying on numbers not provided in the question.

Oh I see what you mean.

 

[Borg]

Is this supposed to be so simple to confuse you of the obvious answer?

Only if you're blonde.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhm7-LEBznk

 

[emailanmol]

A cylindrical hole is drilled diametrically through a sphere. If the height of the cylindrical wall generated is L, what's the volume of the remaining material?

I know the answer.Classic Problem

 

[emailanmol]

Yeah
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm

Thanks a lot :-)

Divine intervention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSSzjgVl9RM

OMG! Hahahaha.
This is epic.

 

[Chi Meson]

Here's an oldie I really love: You're in a room with 2 doors and 2 guards. One of the doors leads to freedom, the other to death, you don't know which is which. One of the guards always tells the truth the always lies but you don't know which guard is which.

You are allowed to ask one of the guards one question to gain your freedom. What do you ask?

You ask one guard what the other guard would say if you asked him which door leads to freedom.

NOPE!
(cue XKCD again!)
http://xkcd.com/246/

 

[Dadface]

If a chicken and a half can lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, then how long will it take for a cockroach to kick all the seeds out of a cucumber?

Is the answer Belgium?

 

[BobG]

What is \frac{\pi L^3}{6}

 

[Gokul43201]

What is \frac{\pi L^3}{6}

Nice work. How did you solve it?

 

[BobG]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

Then I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius equal to the radius of the sphere, in which case, the sphere ceases to exist, the length of the hole is 0, and the remaining volume of the nonexistant sphere is 0.

Then I imagined all the possible radii for the hole in between 0 and the radius of the sphere.

Or, in English, I used the washer method of integration using the radius of the sphere (R) and the radius of the hole (r). Your limits of integration can be from -x to x (with x calculated from R and r using the Pythagorean theorem) or, since spheres are symmetrical, from 0 to x and then just double the volume (the latter means less arithmetic).

V = \frac{4 \pi (R^2 - r^2)^{3/2}}{3}

The length of the hole (using the Pythagorean theorem) is:
L = 2 \sqrt{R^2 - r^2}

Substituted L into the original solution.

It would be a very hard problem if you started with L and tried to solve it.

 

[Gokul43201]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

This is really all you need to do to solve the question, especially given my confirmation that the answer was independent of the radius of the hole.

Or, in English, I used the washer method of integration using the radius of the sphere (R) and the radius of the hole (r). Your limits of integration can be from -x to x (with x calculated from R and r using the Pythagorean theorem) or, since spheres are symmetrical, from 0 to x and then just double the volume (the latter means less arithmetic).

V = \frac{4 \pi (R^2 - r^2)^{3/2}}{3}

The length of the hole (using the Pythagorean theorem) is:
L = 2 \sqrt{R^2 - r^2}

Substituted L into the original solution.

The washer method is nice. Didn't think of that.

It would be a very hard problem if you started with L and tried to solve it.

Not really (or maybe I'm just making excuses for my inelegance). That's how I double-checked that the question was indeed legit. All you have to do is calculate the volume of a "polar cap", and that takes maybe a couple minutes or so.

 

[BobG]

I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius of 0, in which case the nonexistant hole has a length equal to the diameter of the sphere, making it easy to calculate the remaining volume.

Then I imagined a hole through the sphere with a radius equal to the radius of the sphere, in which case, the sphere ceases to exist, the length of the hole is 0, and the remaining volume of the nonexistant sphere is 0.

Then I imagined all the possible radii for the hole in between 0 and the radius of the sphere.

This is really all you need to do to solve the question, especially given my confirmation that the answer was independent of the radius of the hole.

This is true. I felt I needed a more formal way to prove my intuition was right for all the in-between stuff, as well. But the math is easier when you already know how you want the answer to look.

 

[DaveC426913]

By what stretch of the imagination is this "art"?

Alow me to defend it for a moment.

Modern art is not about pretty and aesthetically pleasing. Well arranged flowers and sunsets.

It is about ideas and conversation. And it must be experienced IRL (in real life). Because you're going to ask yourself things like: Do the details in the pic evoke anything in you? Recognize anything from your own room? Has the artist managed capture the essence of a messy bed that a remarkable number of us can relate to? Does it repulse you? Or does it comfort you?
None of the above? What does it make you think of? (Not the piece, or the price tag - what does the content make you think of?)

 

[Gokul43201]

I think we're gradually blurring the meaning of art so it will soon be hard to identify anything as 'not art'.

Today a picture of a messy bedroom is art. Tomorrow, the messy bedroom itself will be considered art.

 

[netgypsy]

Knowing how many Trekkies are out there I'm most interested in conclusions that have been reached on this question. Assuming one could be "beamed up" like in "Beam me up Scotty", obviously the entire pattern of atoms in your body is recorded, disassembled, then reassembled in that precise pattern. the question is, if it happened to you, when you were reassembled, would you still be on the inside looking out?

And one could take this one step further. If you were accidentally reassembled twice, which one would you be inside looking out of? One, none or both??

Assuming the answer is none, who would be inside the newly reassembled being?? Physically speaking would it be alive? If not why not?

And I'm interested in this problem from the point of view of physics, not philosophy or religion.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a concept close to my heart. I am fascinated with stories having to do with identity.

Think like a Dinosaur, Kelly
Mindscan, Sawyer
Terminal Experiment, Sawyer
ST:TNG: Second Chances

when you were reassembled, would you still be on the inside looking out?

Yes. If who we are is an emergent property of our brains, then a copy of our brains is also us.

And one could take this one step further. If you were accidentally reassembled twice, which one would you be inside looking out of? One, none or both??

Each would view themselves as the original.

And I'm interested in this problem from the point of view of physics, not philosophy or religion.

Which is why the answers are so easy. We are the sum total of our physical bodies. Reassembling our bodies, whether singularly or plural, means we have reassembled ourselves.

 

[OmCheeto]

...ST:TNG: ...

Which is why the answers are so easy. We are the sum total of our physical bodies. Reassembling our bodies, whether singularly or plural, means we have reassembled ourselves.

What if, when being transported, you started to clip your too long fingernails?

Would the transporter computer see this as an error in replication on reassembly?

hmmm...

I love short, mind boggling, trekkian, questions.

 

[netgypsy]

This bothers me because Identical twins aren't both on the inside of both bodies looking out. The are identical but separate. Assuming you could be reassembled twice at exactly the same time from exactly the same pattern I still can't perceive that you would be inside both bodies looking at yourself or even being able to switch back and forth. Clones are incredibly close but not the same consciousness. it's true you couldn't be assembled at the same place as well as at the same time but I somehow suspect that if you were disassembled you would be no longer there period. You would "die". And the reassembled "clone" for want of a better term would be your twin but not you. But the weirdest part of the whole thing is that this twin would have all your memories, perceptions, thought processes and so on but i think it would be your identical clone, not you. Why? because this identical individual could be created without taking you apart. And there's no reason to assume that you could somehow jump from the original to the new one just because you were disassembled or "killed" for want of a better term. And when the new one is created I can't see that you would be both at one time. Of course there is anecdotal evidence that identical twins perceive experiences of the other twin but I'd have to see a real study with documentation using brain responses and so on to convince me of this. Because if this is really true, there is an actually cerebral connection between two pretty much identical individuals it's as though consciousness can jump from one to another - as though it's split but connected. Twin studies are interesting for sure. I do know that people who spend a huge amount of time together in a harmonious relationship gradually begin to function in a very similar fashion, so much so that outsiders think they are blood relatives in appearance even, when upon close study they are quite different physically. It's as though the two have been mixed together in a big blender, then separated back into two and now to be almost the same person.

Any twin studies on a long distance cerebral connection and if so , how does this happen? Somewhat connected to this is the ability of a school of fish or herd of animals to move simultaneously when obviously not all the individuals perceived the threat, barrier, whatever caused the direction change. I need to look for studies on this phenomenon as I've seen it myself.

Regarding making a change during transport unless you were taken apart instantaneously it would horrendously painful so hardly a time to be grooming.