Unutterably Silly Quiz

Unless it is employing a parallax effect I can't see how more than three faces would be visible. You must provide a photograph with the solution.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Unless it is employing a parallax effect I can't see how more than three faces would be visible. You must provide a photograph with the solution.

Four sides... You forgot the 'outside.' He didn't ask for 'faces.' He asked for 'sides.'


Stitchawl

[pdurrant]

No, I'm not employing some clever meaning of 'side'. I am asking how to position the cube so that you can see as many of the six sides you've constructed as possible.

No, I don't mean how many can you see if it's rotating, or if you walk around it, or if it moves in some complicated way.

You need to make the cube be in a place where, with the cube stationary and yourself standing still, you can see as many of the six sides of the cube as possible.

The number of sides you can see in this way is more than 4.

Where's the cube, and how many sides can you see?

[pdurrant]

Oh, and just in case, I don't mean you have to move it to some weird place where light bends so much you can see the back of your head, nor do I mean finding a way to put it and yourself in a closed universe so small that you can see all the way back to your starting point.

The cube and you are stationary. (Well, stationary on the Earth, neglecting the fact the the Earth is spinning and moving through space.)

[pdurrant]

OK, a hint. I suspect someone will get it quickly after this, so "On Your Marks!".

It's possible to arrange things so that you can see all six sides at once.


(Bonus half point will not now be awarded.)

[alishajordan]

If the cube was place on one of it's corners in a calm reflecting pool and you were on an observation platform above, you could theoretically see all sides of the cube.

This is assuming you don't consider a reflecting pool a mirror (your no mirror rule above).

Ah, you construct a cube around you so that you are interior to it?

[Billi]

That's what I thought, too, but looking around here in my room I don't manage to see all sides simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Billi

That's what I thought, too, but looking around here in my room I don't manage to see all sides simultaneously.

Yes, but I am imagining that room constructed so that a corner is now at the bottom and at the top. Head in the bottom corner and looking up? There was no condition that it be normal or comfortable.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Ah, you construct a cube around you so that you are interior to it?

Yes! And to see all the sides at once, you stand in a corner, not in the middle of it.

There's no need to be uncomfortable. Image a cubic room. Stand in one corner, looking towards the opposite corner. You can certainly see the ceiling and the floor and the two side that meet at the opposite corner. And if you're not wearing blinkers, you'll also be able to see some part of the two walls that meet at the corner in which you're standing.

Over to you, Hamlet.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by alishajordan

If the cube was place on one of it's corners in a calm reflecting pool and you were on an observation platform above, you could theoretically see all sides of the cube.

This is assuming you don't consider a reflecting pool a mirror (your no mirror rule above).

The answer has now been given, but considering I ruled out pocket universes, I think you might have assumed that no mirrors mean no reflecting surfaces of any kind.

Transport back in time before automobiles & roads, trains & railroad tracks, and airplanes existed. A message must be delivered on foot across the Sahara Desert from Casablanca to Marrakesh. One person can carry enough food and water to last four days of traveling. The total journey requires six days. What is the minimum number of people that must start on the journey together in order for at least one person to to make it to Marrakesh while leaving nobody stranded in the desert without food or water? Explain your reasoning please.

[Billi]

Three persons.

A has 4 bottles/foods and goes 1 day, he needs 1 bottle for his way back and gives 1 to B and 1 to C.
B has 4 bottles/foods, goes 2 days and needs his bottles all for himself. But on the second day he carries the bottle from A and gives it to C in the evening.
C starts with 4 bottles/foods and as he receives the 2 bottles from A he has 4 bottles for the remaining 4 days.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Transport back in time before automobiles & roads, trains & railroad tracks, and airplanes existed. A message must be delivered on foot across the Sahara Desert from Casablanca to Marrakesh. One person can carry enough food and water to last four days of traveling. The total journey requires six days. What is the minimum number of people that must start on the journey together in order for at least one person to to make it to Marrakesh while leaving nobody stranded in the desert without food or water? Explain your reasoning please.

Three

They set out on the first day with 12 days rations, and use up 3 days rations, leaving them with 9 days, and one days travel from Casablanca

On the second day, one turns back with 1 days rations, and the other two carry on, each with four days rations. The one who turned back arrives back in Casablanca safely, having used up the 1 days rations. The other two use up two days rations, leaving them with six days, and two days travel from Casablanca

On the third day one turns back taking two days rations, and the remaining traveller carries on with four days rations.

At the end of the fourth day, the second traveller arrives safely back in Casablanca.

At the end of the sixth day, the third traveller arrives safely in Marrakesh

[pdurrant]

I think I shouldn't have spent so much time typing!