Maths Question.

Status
Not open for further replies.
JimB said:
Could it be that the original problem has been incorrectly stated?

Ask yourself this simple question. If instead of the cube you now has a square plate of size 10cm, can it go through?
 
Yes, a square plate can go through, until it gets to a certain thickness.
JimB
 
I'm with Jim. I think this is an incorrect "permutation" of **broken link removed**.
 
Hi everyone,

The problem is one I saw on a mathematical puzzle book some twenty years ago and the solution offered seem plausible to me at the time. However, I still considered it a bit skeptical as it is so hard to believe.(See my previous post)

It was definitely not the Rupert's problem as that was easy to explain and understand.

As this has generated some controversy, I have decided to mock one up and try to get to the bottom of it, for everyone else and also myself.

Needless to say,the cube barely pass 20% of itself through the square hole, no matter how I turn it.

I sincerely apologize for misleading everyone on this. My hat off to JimB and Ron.
 
well trying to answer the original question.... i think the question itself arises due to a confusion ; that is , the deficit of 10$occurs because you are trying to add the creditor and debtor side...
think of it this way --- how much did they pay ? 3 * 100 =300$

the meal cost 250$;the waiter kept 20$;and 30$ was returned back...add it all up 250+30+20 = 300$ ....... so there is no 10$ missing after all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…