Guaranteed to stump at least 50 people!

[Codammanus-2014]

Ladieeeeeees aaaaand Gennnntlemen!!!!

Step right up to your keyboards and make me look like a fool. (Other than what I already look like).

I have a "simple" drawing exercise for any who venture to answer. I guarantee that I can get at least 50 wrong answers from the audience (If I can get 50 people to reply), and possibly 100. This is a problem which I have proposed to many people for YEARS no one has been able to figure it out.

I want to give it a try with a more technical audience with an international flavor.

Now,

Please understand that NOT an exercise in arrogance or intelligence (mine, nor yours). It is an exercise in thinking. More than that, of diversion, so have fun. and Don't be bashful about your responses

The question is:

I'm drawing a figure in my head. It is a square and a triangle that are conjoined, but this figure does the impossible. It has LESS THAN FOUR CORNERS.

What does that figure look like?

There is a catch. The catch is this: No questions!!!

The only hint I will give you is this:

You can find a picture of this figure on the internet, so you only have to draw it in your head once (no scans necessary).

Take care.

Codammanus.

Project: CMOMNXQIUVEST>>>

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[KB]

The square is inside a right angle triangle, all four corners touch the sides of the triangle but the drawing has only three corners.

Basically the square will start within the right angle and continue along both sides to the midway point and then cut across to touch at the center of the hypotenuse.

Ken

PS I have just realised that this could be technically incorrect but will let it stand as the first attempt.

[Codammanus-2014]

Sounds good, but I need photo documentation. Remember, this is a drawing exercise. Where can I find a photo of this figure?

Remember the hint, a link will do also. For example,

My answer is : Unless, it is simpler understood in writing.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[alt.watch.obsessive]

I assume a pyramid drawn looking from the side doesn't count

[Codammanus-2014]

That actually sounds interesting. Not quite though.

[jake48]

The square is inside a right angle triangle, all four corners touch the sides of the triangle but the drawing has only three corners.

Basically the square will start within the right angle and continue along both sides to the midway point and then cut across to touch at the center of the hypotenuse.

Ken

PS I have just realised that this could be technically incorrect but will let it stand as the first attempt.

Basically, I think Ken is saying this - smaller triangle of course (correct me if I am wrong)

Edited September 3, 2008 by jake48

[FxrAndy]

My try

[Codammanus-2014]

Too many corners. I count 6 in the first figure (Ken's) 13 in the one after. (FxrAndy)

Both EXCELLENT though.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[mjmurphy926]

My answer:

The conjoined square is laying flat along the bottom of the triangle.

A 2 dimensional drawing of what it would look like:

But my answer is the top drawing that has only 3 corners.

[Codammanus-2014]

I must say, that is the most clever answer yet. But since this is a drawing exercise, and the figure would have to be drawn...

Too many corners. In 2-D. And the ENTIRE FIGURE should be visible without manipulation

And I am baffled as to how you even conceived that answer. Good one, but not quite. I think I might mention that in addition to being a drawing exercise, it is also a thinking (not necessarily spatial either).

The answer will likely stump you too. Then upset you. Then perhaps...I don't know.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[mjmurphy926]

I must say, that is the most clever answer yet. But since this is a drawing exercise, and the figure would have to be drawn...

I beg to differ The figure was drawn , that's why you can see it. If I didn't draw it, it wouldn't be there.

You may have a different answer, but I won't concede that mine is a wrong answer!! (I'm pig-headed like that )

[Codammanus-2014]

I beg to differ The figure was drawn , that's why you can see it. If I didn't draw it, it wouldn't be there.

You may have a different answer, but I won't concede that mine is a wrong answer!! (I'm pig-headed like that )

And for good reason. However, the answer to this question, when drawn, does not have to be manipulated, moved, or viewed from any other angle.

You are right though. It is actually drawn. I stand corrected. Your two-dimensional drawing where the square is showing (that's important) does have more corners.

One answer only.

I am impressed. (No one ever presented that before)

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[Nanuq]

Cut out a paper triangle. Curl its bottom two corners forward, toward you, until they touch. Looking down on it, you have formed a cylinder. Now curl the top corner down and forward, toward you, until it touches the junction of the first two corners.

Viewed in silhouette this is a square, when the shape of its initial triangle is adjusted correctly.

Having curls instead of folds, you have not introduced any new "corners."

[Codammanus-2014]

Cut out a paper triangle. Curl its bottom two corners forward, toward you, until they touch. Looking down on it, you have formed a cylinder. Now curl the top corner down and forward, toward you, until it touches the junction of the first two corners.

Viewed in silhouette this is a square, when the shape of its initial triangle is adjusted correctly.

Having curls instead of folds, you have not introduced any new "corners."

Nice Work!

But too much work. No cutting or folding required.

[mjmurphy926]

And for good reason. However, the answer to this question, when drawn, does not have to be manipulated, moved, or viewed from any other angle.

You are right though. It is actually drawn. I stand corrected. Your two-dimensional drawing where the square is showing (that's important) does have more corners.

One answer only.

I am impressed. (No one ever presented that before)

Thanks, but still...I concede nothing!!

I am interested in your answer though.

[Codammanus-2014]

Are we at 50 already?

I will give what I said I wouldn't. A Hint.

However,

WARNING: This hint may actually make the problem more difficult, or take you straight there to the answer.

Hint: If you can both draw a triangle, but also get involved in one....

The above hint does NOT change the nature of the answer. It is still a figure to be DRAWN.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[Nanuq]

Nice Work!

But too much work. No cutting or folding required.

Simple then... It is a long thin line that looks like the numeral 9

"three" squared

[Codammanus-2014]

That's not it either.

But if I could give you a pat on the back, you'd need surgery afterward.

Edit: P.S. That is not a bad thing.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[Pugwash]

[Codammanus-2014]

Another first!

That was cool.

I knew posting this here would be interesting!

Am I anywhere near 50?

Edited September 3, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[Codammanus-2014]

I thought it would have been figured out by now.

I'm holding the solution hostage. I want a large extra-cheese pizza, a fully fueled plane ready to take me anywhere in the world I want to go, and a Noobmariner---untraceable.

I will save you a slice.

[Codammanus-2014]

Just so I'll know where on the same page,

The object below has six (6) corners. I'm not counting "external" corners. Anyone object?

Corners.bmp

Edited September 4, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[nelsonPK]

Here's my guess at the answer...it is a trick question: the drawing is of only a triangle, fulfilling the criteria of 3 corners, the 'square' is in the maths i.e. Pythagoras theorem

Quote from some maths site:

The Pythagorean theorem states that for any right triangle the sum of the squares of its two legs equals the square of its hypotenuse (a2 + b2 = c2). Or we could frame it as the sum of the square of the horizontal and the square of the perpendicular equals the square of the hypotenuse. We know this formulation was known before Pythagoras - there is evidence in ancient Egyptian work, ancient China (the Chou Pei manuscript), and the megalith builders. Regardless, it is attributed to Pythagoras and two hundred years later Euclid compiled his "Elements of Mathematics" where this particular proposition is found in Book One.

(47th) In every right angle triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides.

[Codammanus-2014]

You are so close, that i can't talk much.

Except for the Pythagorean Theorem. And the square is also visible as well as the triangle. No manipulation or moving necessary. Now, you might say "How was I close then."

Oh yeah, you're close. If you combine that with another answer here.

YOU WILL HAVE IT. I give it about another hour.

Hey, is my jet ready? And my pizza?

I also need a vet and a parapsychologist for my dog Lenny. He has one eye and tells me he sees reps that arrive DOA.

Edited September 4, 2008 by Codammanus-2014

[andreww]

Okay, here is my guess...

Now on first glance it may seem to have four corners, but if you think spacially, you can picture this being a 2D version of this object...

As you can see, the object has a corner at the top, bottom, and around its center, for a total of 3.