Best Answer bushindo, 12 April 2013 - 02:43 AM

Spoiler for PROOF pt.3

I believe there is a subtle error here

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

Started by BMAD, Apr 06 2013 03:30 AM

Best Answer bushindo, 12 April 2013 - 02:43 AM

Spoiler for PROOF pt.3

I believe there is a subtle error here

Spoiler for

Go to the full post
20 replies to this topic

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:18 PM

There is a proof that i have that show's that it should be possible but what you present is something that i reference in my proof as well.

Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:17 AM

A proof would be interesting to see.

A post on red hot pawn, where this problem was discussed a few years back, makes this claim:

See: http://www.redhotpaw...70&page=&page=3

*I agree with this reasoning for some sufficiently large number of points in the plane. However, I am not sure how this translates to, say, the initial problem of 6 points in the plane. I do not really know the answer yet. The best I have come up with is the same as what Palynka [the pentagon 1.902 answer] proposed, but I do not have a proof that it is the minimum. I do have a proof that, for example, the answer cannot be less than y/x = sqrt(3). But that does not help that much.*

He does not post the proof itself, although I believe it.

But note his proof is "cannot be less than" which is different from "can be equal to."

A post on red hot pawn, where this problem was discussed a few years back, makes this claim:

See: http://www.redhotpaw...70&page=&page=3

He does not post the proof itself, although I believe it.

But note his proof is "cannot be less than" which is different from "can be equal to."

*Vidi vici veni.*

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:17 PM

Spoiler for PROOF pt.1

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:18 PM

Spoiler for PROOF pt.2

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:21 PM

Spoiler for PROOF pt.3

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:23 PM

Spoiler for However

**Edited by BMAD, 11 April 2013 - 05:23 PM.**

Posted 11 April 2013 - 05:51 PM

Spoiler for Nice proof

*Vidi vici veni.*

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:43 PM

Spoiler for Proof of strict inequality

*Vidi vici veni.*

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:43 AM Best Answer

Spoiler for PROOF pt.3

I believe there is a subtle error here

Spoiler for

Posted 02 June 2014 - 05:30 AM

I came across this page which seems to contradict my proof. Any ideas where I went wrong?

http://www2.stetson....friedma/maxmin/

http://www2.stetson....friedma/maxmin/

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users