Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Hershey bar


Best Answer jordge, 08 October 2012 - 01:28 PM

Spoiler for No math involved
Go to the full post


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#11 hhh3

hhh3

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:30 AM

OMG.... warp what??!!
  • 0
alWaYs gaMe!!!

#12 curr3nt

curr3nt

    The

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2839 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in a field of spatulas...

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:40 PM

OMG.... warp what??!!


Sure. Chocolate bars possess strange and wonderful properties that we are still working to understand.
  • 0

#13 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:05 PM

Only stacking in a third dimension is not allowed? Cut pieces may be moved around on the plane or rotated to be cut further?

What about flipping of pieces? (although I fail to see how that may be advantageous at this point)


Rotating and flipping is OK.
  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#14 superprismatic

superprismatic

    Not just Prismatic

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1281 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:30 PM

Spoiler for my vote goes to

  • 0

#15 Prof. Templeton

Prof. Templeton

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1664 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 October 2012 - 07:47 PM

Spoiler for my vote goes to

This is exactly my thought also.
Spoiler for It seems...

  • 0

#16 bonanova

bonanova

    bonanova

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5713 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 10 October 2012 - 10:50 PM

If I understand their posts correctly, and I may not have,
sp's expression gives 5, and PT's algorithm gives 6, when, e.g., m=5 and n=7.

Neither seems possible without stacking, or, equivalently, holding two or more pieces together next to each other, so as to keep the configuration planar.

OP asks for the minimum straight-line breaks, simultaneous or not.
So as an aid to counting, it disallowed stacking.

Break a piece. Repeat. Count the steps.

Spoiler for Among the responses so far

  • 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#17 Prof. Templeton

Prof. Templeton

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1664 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2012 - 04:54 PM

If I understand their posts correctly, and I may not have,
sp's expression gives 5, and PT's algorithm gives 6, when, e.g., m=5 and n=7.

Neither seems possible without stacking, or, equivalently, holding two or more pieces together next to each other, so as to keep the configuration planar.


These solutions took a loose interpretation of "stacking" where the cut pieces could not be laid on top of each other to create height. This was reinforced when you didn't address my question about only not stacking in a third dimension. Since we are dealing with an initial height of 1 the stipulation would have been a red herring. :rolleyes:

I didn't notice sp had a "-1" in there, but if we look at a simple case of 2 x 2, then sp's formula says that can be done in 1 cut. I don't see how that is possible even with stacking. Or an even simpler case of 1 x 1 would require -1 cuts instead of zero.

OP asks for the minimum straight-line breaks, simultaneous or not.
So as an aid to counting, it disallowed stacking.

Break a piece. Repeat. Count the steps.

Spoiler for Among the responses so far


Spoiler for Without stacking

  • 0
38

#18 curr3nt

curr3nt

    The

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2839 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in a field of spatulas...

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:15 PM

Can I vote for warping space and time (mostly time) so that the chocolate bar is already separated so that 0 splits are now required?

On a serious note...

Spoiler for Without stacking


Spoiler for How does that work?

  • 0

#19 Prof. Templeton

Prof. Templeton

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1664 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

Spoiler for How does that work?


Not Allowed because it would be equivalent to stacking. That was the basis of my first answer.
  • 0

242

#20 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 12 October 2012 - 07:25 PM

Spoiler for

Edited by Izzy, 12 October 2012 - 07:27 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users