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

Illuminating a polygon

Best Answer Yoruichi-san, 14 July 2014 - 11:53 PM

Spoiler for I think it's...
Go to the full post

5 replies to this topic

#1 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 5776 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 14 July 2014 - 04:11 PM

You are given a plane n-gon having no intersecting sides. That is, each segment of the perimeter has interior points on one side and exterior points on the other. We wish to illuminate the interior of the n-gon in its entirety by placing lamps at various points in its interior. Clearly, if the n-gon is convex, one lamp will suffice. Concave points, however, may cast shadows in some interior regions. Since life here in the Den is never simple, we ask about the general case:

To illuminate the interior of a simple n-gon, what is the smallest number of lamps that will always suffice? Does the answer change if we require the lamps to be placed at vertices?

• -1
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#2 nana77

nana77

Senior Member

• Members
• 519 posts
• Gender:Female

Posted 14 July 2014 - 09:44 PM

No proof, but I think the answer is

Spoiler for this

• 0

#3 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 5776 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 14 July 2014 - 10:57 PM

No proof, but I think the answer is

Spoiler for this

Your answer will surely work, but it is not the smallest number that will always suffice.

If you like, try drawing some 2p-gons, where p is 2 or 3 or 4, that are not convex.

Also, consider the fact that a triangle is always convex.

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

#4 Yoruichi-san

Yoruichi-san

"That Woman"

• Members
• 3377 posts
• Gender:Not Telling
• Location:Outside the box

Posted 14 July 2014 - 11:53 PM   Best Answer

Spoiler for I think it's...

• 0
Women are definitely stronger. We are [Fe]males, after all...

Some of what makes me me is real, some of what makes me me is imaginary...I guess I'm just complex. ;P

<3 BBC's Sherlock, the series and the man. "Smart is the new sexy."

Chromatic Witch links now on my 'About Me' page! Episode 3 is finally here!

When life hands me lemons, I make invisible ink.

#5 k-man

k-man

• Members
• 439 posts
• Gender:Male

Posted 15 July 2014 - 02:58 PM

Spoiler for You need no more than

• 0

#6 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 5776 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 15 July 2014 - 06:34 PM

Spoiler for You need no more than

The idea that three is the fewest convex vertices is nice.

So far, y-san's approach gives the tightest upper bound.

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

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users