Jump to content

What time is it?


Recommended Posts

 

It is one of ...

12:00, 12 and 12/13ths of an hour

1 and 1/11th of an hour, 1 and 11/13ths of an hour

2 and 2/11th of an hour, 1 and 10/13ths of an hour

3 and 3/11th of an hour, 1 and 9/13ths of an hour

4 and 4/11th of an hour, 1 and 8/13ths of an hour

5 and 5/11th of an hour, 1 and 7/13ths of an hour

6 and 6/11th of an hour, 1 and 6/13ths of an hour

7 and 7/11th of an hour, 1 and 5/13ths of an hour

8 and 8/11th of an hour, 1 and 4/13ths of an hour

9 and 9/11th of an hour, 1 and 3/13ths of an hour

10 and 10/11th of an hour, 1 and 2/13ths of an hour

11 and 1/13ths of an hour

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fairly certain that it is one of the solutions to question.

Not really: The minute hand is taller than the hour hand (this is a trick question after all).

 

Disregarding the above and just concentrating on angles, I would say: at any time the minute hand and the hour hand overlap, which would be 22 times in 24 hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really: The minute hand is taller than the hour hand (this is a trick question after all).

 

Nope, that would make it an ill-defined unsolvable problem. If you want that, you need to mention how much longer the minute hand is.

 

Disregarding the above and just concentrating on angles, I would say: at any time the minute hand and the hour hand overlap, which would be 22 times in 24 hours.

 

Not good enough, that misses over half of the solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the hour and minute hands are equidistant from the 6 hour, what is the exact time?

 

Ok! beat me over the head with it, but could it be five forty five, plus or minus a tick???

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Mr Skeptic already gave the complete set of correct answers in post 3 for a fully analog clock with smooth motion. If the minute hand ticks but the hour hand is a smooth motion, then DJBruce's answer is the only correct one, assuming you don't count mid-tick, in which case the question is unsolvable without more information. If both hands "tick," it is simpler:

 

 

12:00

1:05

1:55

2:10

2:50

3:15

3:45

4:20

4:40

5:25

5:35

6:00

7:25

7:35

8:20

8:40

9:15

9:45

10:10

10:50

11:05

11:55

 

 

However, I don't know that I've ever seen a clock like that.

 

And if you're going to ask when the ends of the hands are equidistant when the hands are different lengths, then that's unanswerable unless you know the ratio between the minute hand, hour hand, and clock face radius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least one part of both hands (the pivot points) are coincident and so always at the same distance from anything (in terms of the x and y dimensions) including the 6.

The condition is, therefore, met at all times.

 

(Incidentally, my clock is a projection clock so the hour and minute hands actually do occupy the same plane in case anyone was wondering.)

 

Since the condition specified is always met the question simplifies to "what's the exact time?"

Well, the forum software timestamps posts reasonably accurately. I think it's about 19:22 (BST).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Mr Skeptic already gave the complete set of correct answers in post 3 for a fully analog clock with smooth motion. If the minute hand ticks but the hour hand is a smooth motion, then DJBruce's answer is the only correct one, assuming you don't count mid-tick, in which case the question is unsolvable without more information. If both hands "tick," it is simpler:

 

 

12:00

1:05

1:55

2:10

2:50

3:15

3:45

4:20

4:40

5:25

5:35

6:00

7:25

7:35

8:20

8:40

9:15

9:45

10:10

10:50

11:05

11:55

 

 

However, I don't know that I've ever seen a clock like that.

 

And if you're going to ask when the ends of the hands are equidistant when the hands are different lengths, then that's unanswerable unless you know the ratio between the minute hand, hour hand, and clock face radius.

Sorry, the wrong answer. Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not amenable to a correct answer because, as has been shown, there are many possible answers depending on how the question is interpreted.

 

I think it falls to you to "try harder" to ask a clearer question rather than expecting us to try harder to answer the one you have set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is not amenable to a correct answer because, as has been shown, there are many possible answers depending on how the question is interpreted.

 

I think it falls to you to "try harder" to ask a clearer question rather than expecting us to try harder to answer the one you have set.

Sorry to disappoint you John Cuthber, the details provided are sufficient to solve this problem. Only it is a hard nut to crack.

 

This is similar to "prove 2x2=5"

 

I know there are lot of math wizards on the SFN, who can easily solve this problem, hence I am holding back the solution, which is quite simple to crack this hard nut.

Edited by needimprovement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to disappoint you John Cuthber, the details provided are sufficient to solve this problem. Only it is a hard nut to crack.

 

This is similar to "prove 2x2=5"

 

I know there are lot of math wizards on the SFN, who can easily solve this problem, hence I am holding back the solution, which is quite simple to crack this hard nut.

 

Wait you are saying that this problem is completely fallacious and does not have an actual solution just like the proof of 2x2=5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The problem have actual solution. When I say similar to prove 2x2=5, I mean "disguised with simplicity".

 

Without you accurately describing the problem there are numerous correct solutions through out this thread. Therefore, could you please restate the problem so that we figure out which of the right answers you want?

 

The error in that proof is not that disguised it is fairly obvious and easy to spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, now, not only do I know that the original problem does not have a unique solution (several perfectly valid solutions have been supplied), but I don't understand why Needsimprovement thinks that asking me to prove that 2X2=5 is in any way helpful.

Does he mean just plain wrong.

Does he mean that while everybody else uses 4 for the answer to that question, he has decided to use the symbol "5" for the number of dots here ....

Did he mean to ask me to prove that 2X2 =4 and cocked it up?

 

The trouble is that 'When I say similar to prove 2x2=5, I mean "disguised with simplicity". ' doesn't really mean anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, now, not only do I know that the original problem does not have a unique solution (several perfectly valid solutions have been supplied), but I don't understand why Needsimprovement thinks that asking me to prove that 2X2=5 is in any way helpful.

Does he mean just plain wrong.

Does he mean that while everybody else uses 4 for the answer to that question, he has decided to use the symbol "5" for the number of dots here ....

Did he mean to ask me to prove that 2X2 =4 and cocked it up?

 

The trouble is that 'When I say similar to prove 2x2=5, I mean "disguised with simplicity". ' doesn't really mean anything.

I am providing the answer. The third super power of 9, is a 'GIGANTIC' number which has remained un-calculated, despite the use of super computers!! (to the best of my knowledge)

 

2 is equal to 3 is also solved in the same way as 2x2 = 5

 

since 4 -10 = 9 - 15

there fore 2^2 - 2x5 = 3^2 - 3x5

there fore 2^2 - 2x2x5/2 + (5/2)^2 = 3^2 - 2x3x5/2 + (5/2)^2

there fore (2-5/2)^2 = (3-5/2)^2 take sq.root on both sides

there fore 2 -5/2 = 3 -5/2

there fore 2 = 3 QED

 

If you give a close look, you'll understand the 'Modus-Operandi' behind this calculation. This method can be used to prove a number equal to its next number viz: 2=3, (2x2) 4=5, (3x3) 9=10 and so on.

 

Let me explain the modus operandi: say we want to prove 9=10 (three threes are ten)

 

1. Multiply both the numbers to obtain the negative difference of the equation so 9x10=90 therefore -90 is the difference

 

2. Square the numbers on both sides and add (-90)

there fore 81-171 = 100-190

there fore 9^2 -9x19 = 10^2 -10x19 (now multiply and divide the neg.no.by 2)

there fore 9^2 -2x9x19/2 = 10^2 -2x10x19/2

 

3. Now add the positive difference(+90) plus 1/4 on both sides i.e. +90.1/4=361/4=(19/2)^2

there fore 9^2 -2x9x19/2 + (19/2)^2 = 10^2 -2x10x19/2 + (19/2)^2

there fore (9-19/2)^2 = (10-19/)^2

there fore 3x3 -19/2 = 10 -19/2

there fore 3x3 = 10 QED

 

In the nutshell, the whole creation is to nullify everything, leaving (-1/2)^2 = (+1/2)^2

 

------------------------------------------

 

The answer is 2, easy for those who remember the strings!!

 

Like pythegorian number 3^2+4^2 = 5^2, there is another beautiful string :

 

10^2+11^2+12^2 = 13^2+14^2 The sum equals to 365 and sqr of 365 is 133225 another memorable number, multiplied by 2 gives 266450.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.