Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers
  • 0


superprismatic
 Share

Question

If I ask you to place N equally space points on a circle,

you would have no particular trouble doing so. The same

is not true for equally spaced points on a sphere, as is

evidenced by the irregular-looking pattern of dimples

on a golf ball.

But what does equally spaced points on a sphere mean?

I have come up with a working definition which is probably

not original to me: The points are equally spaced if and

only if the minimum distance from a point to any other

point is maximized. That is, find the closest neighbor

to every point, then find the smallest such distance,

and make sure that it is as large as possible. So, for

a 2-point example, the points would be antipodal -- that's

as far away from each other than they can get. For three

points, they will all lie on a great circle. For four

points, they form the vertices of a regular tetrahedron

(a tetrahedron of which all edges have the same length).

Suppose one places 8 equally-spaces points (according to

the definition above) on a unit sphere (a sphere of radius

1). What would be the shortest euclidean distance between

any pair of points? Euclidean distance is the straight-line

distance (not the distance over the surface of the sphere)

between the points. How would you describe the figure

whose vertices are those points?

It is NOT a cube.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

post-3375-12477940103179.gif

The points will be placed based on the following visualization:

imagine 2 symetrical regular tetrahedrons. Now flip one of them vertically (Top summit becomes down). Now merge them together as if one's summit pierces the other's bse triangle.

Now the final object (after we join all neighboring points) will be like 4 tetrahedrons put together and each 2 of them will be sharing 1 side between them...

These tetrahedrons are not regular, in fact, the base is still an equilateral triangle, but the distance from the summit to the plane containing that base will be half the diatnce in a regular tetrahedron with that same base. WHAT??

In simple terms, the height of the new tetrahedrons will be half of the original ones before the merger.

I am not sure if my explanation is clear, but I'm pretty sure I got the visual solution of this puzzle.

Now for the distance, It would be calculated like so:

Based on my figure on the left, the distance we are looking for is simply half of the hypotenuse of any right triangle with 2 antipodal summits (Hypoteneuse = 2)

Therefore distance = 1 = radius of the sphere

It's a bit late for me to put more details in my solution (4:40 AM where I live)

So i'm gonna settle for this and maybe "superprismatic" can tell me if I'm on the right track at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

if it's not a cube, then the spacing distance is greater than the cube's spacing distance. Two adjacent points on a cube differ by the side of the cube, call that s

s*sqrt(3) = length of the diagonal of the cube = diameter of circumscribed sphere = 2r

s = r*(2/sqrt3)

s is the side of the cube and also the spacing distance for the cube fitting. In other words, the Euclidean distance if you use a cube is the radius multiplied by 2/sqrt3 which is 1.15470054

so 1.15470054*r is the spacing distance to beat

For that reason, we know that roolstar's procedure (if I understood it correctly) is too close together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

1) ~1.216

2)a square antiprism (basically a cube with 2 opposing faces twisted 45 degrees relative to each other)

It would have 10 faces; 8 of them triangles, 2 of them squares

Edited by Matou
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

unreality, you are right in your reasoning and this made me review my calculations. As I expected I made a mistake in calculating the distance:

After review, distance = R*2/sqrt(3) = 2/sqrt(3) = 1.155

Now I'm pretty sure about my calculation, but I'm not sure if we can maximize that distance even more.

Maybe Matou's method is closer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Matou's got it!

Nice...

So my method is better than the cube, but there's an even better answer (MATOU's). Love that kind of puzzles...

If someonw would take the time on rendering it on some 3D modeling software, I would love to see a 3D model of Matou's method V/s mine and even V/s cube. I'm pretty sure it would become easier to see why Matou's structure maximizes more than mine.

Nice puzzle superprismatic...

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...