Rox53

This one is as old as the hills

I would say that the sample size of women is too small to make an accurate assessment, and that more female patients need to be assessed before a useful result can be found.

I reached the same conclision - but then I thought that the problem seems to exclude using powers (or factorials, for that matter). So, here's my attempt at a solution

Can somebody please enlighten me. Maybe I'm being stupid, but I can't understand wht this particular puzzle is about!

I must have started reading this topic too late. I got the same answer as Half Fast after a couple of attempts. But I wasn't as devious as Mike D, who had to wait an extra 4 minutes. Who boils their eggs for 9 minutes anyway? It must be very hard. I like my yolk runny!

There is one other option that no-one seems to have considered ..... an incestuous marriage? Or does that go bryond the 'typical American family' guideline?

If you start with a rectangle with no integer edges, then at least one of the smaller rectangles will also lack integer edges. This is heuristically true - but I can't prove it yet. If my first statement can be proved, then it follows that the original proposition (If you have a rectangle and you partition it into smaller rectangles such that every rectangle has at least 1 edge of integer length, then the large rectangle has 1 edge of integer length) must be true.

I think it's more about the fact that we have two eyes in the same horizontal plane. If you put your head to one side, then the images change and you see things differently. Try it!

This is such an easy one. Ms. Deaf can't be much good at maths if she doesn't know the short cut! Good to have this forum back up and running!