Creative thinking question

[Montez]

I think it's highly significant that the 'correct' answer was only obtained at NMA. It shows that only a regular of that forum could come up with a ridiculous enough answer.

But let's give the Navy some credit here--they know their official answer is bunk. They're not testing logical thinking (they know they have to go to physicists and engineers for that anyhow), they're testing whether their recruits will be able to swallow a load of complete horseshit without complaining. Those who get a wrong answer (i.e., one that makes sense) and get told they're wrong and then complain about it would probably make poor military men as they talk back to superior officers. Those who accept the idiocy from above are likely put on the fast track to command.

Now it's a square and one or more triangles, huh? Again, since squares are by definition equilateral, I can now specify a trapezoid which, when using a square, requires a minimum of four additional triangles. At that point, why not just say "screw it" and do the two-triangle construction?

I can appreciate puzzles which don't require an M.S. in mathematics to solve, but this seems to require flunking high school geometry. Which, as stated earlier, is probably why the Navy uses it. Furthermore, the explanation given smells like a reverse derivation. If you had said "brown," then apart from substituting the red-yellow-green of traffic lights (a far more commonly seen sequence once one leaves elementary school) for finger paints, the exact same "logical" process would apply.

Hahaha..... gotta love 'em.

 

[Fyu-jon!!!]

A circle is everywhere differentiable, whereas trapezoids and triangles are not. Therefore the answer is red.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Montez wrote:

because Red, Yellow and Blue are the primary colors.

Ummm, I may be incorrect, but aren't

Red
Green
Blue

The three primary colors all others are based off of? And if they are doesn't that invalidate your assumption as to what color it is?


Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[Wooz]

Nope.

Red, yellow and blue.

Green is 'made' by mixing blue and yellow. Try playing around with paint if you don't believe me.

 

[Montez]

Ummm, I may be incorrect, but aren't

Red
Green
Blue

The three primary colors all others are based off of? And if they are doesn't that invalidate your assumption as to what color it is?

It depends. Red, blue, and yellow are usually considered to be the primary colors, because those are the colors that artists use to make other colors with paint and pigments. Television and similar devices use RGB, which is an color system based on the actual projection of light. There's also CMYK, which is used in printing.

So there are different definitions of what consitutes primary colors. As to whether it invalidates my assumption - RGB contains no yellow, so it doesn't work. CMYK contains no red, so it doesn't work. The RBY system is the only one that fits, so it's the only logical answer.

Edit: Thanks Wooz, I type way too slowly.

 

[Thorgrimm]

Nope.

Red, yellow and blue.

Green is 'made' by mixing blue and yellow. Try playing around with paint if you don't believe me.

Wooz, thanks for the heads up. This is what I was thinking of when I thought of RGB.

This quote is from Science Daily:

Media that use emitted light and therefore additive color mixing (such as television) use the additive primaries red, green, and blue. Because of the response curves of the three different color receptors in the human eye, these colors are optimal in the sense that the largest range of colors visible by humans can be generated by mixing light of those colors

Since I repair One Hour Photo Machines, I deal with the RGB spectra all the time, and confused that with basic non-light transmitted colors.

EDIT, Montez, after checking it out I realized my error.

Cheers Thorgrimm

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Incredible Montez! I dont mean to leech of your success, but I guessed blue as well though I got here too late to answer.

Good to meet another person who took the blue pill eh?

Somehow this thread has become somewhat non-sensical...will mind worms be this mod too?!

8) ,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Roshambo]

But let's give the Navy some credit here--they know their official answer is bunk. They're not testing logical thinking (they know they have to go to physicists and engineers for that anyhow), they're testing whether their recruits will be able to swallow a load of complete horseshit without complaining. Those who get a wrong answer (i.e., one that makes sense) and get told they're wrong and then complain about it would probably make poor military men as they talk back to superior officers. Those who accept the idiocy from above are likely put on the fast track to command.

Quite true, and fair enough. On the other hand, those that give a reason and are told it's incorrect - if they give a sufficient reason why they think so, they get the re-/enlistment bonuses and better jobs. Technology Engineers, the Nukes, the Extra Testicals, and a few more get a bit of preference after the officers in ship life. Not only do they make sure the comms and radar are good, they make sure that everything electronic/electrical on board works.

Including stuff not job related. When you have officers coming to your compartment from their spot on the hot deck, to fix their walkman or other PED in exchange for preferred commisary goods or other favors (*snorts like a dirty Frenchman*), nobody really messes with you; even the redneck deckapes need their tunes. I loved my cruise ship with a nice AC compartment. "Yes, sir, I can fix this in about an hour, if emergency repairs don't arise. Want a cold towel from the rack? You're raining sweat." Then watch for five minutes as they start shivering.

 

[Elric]

I've never seen a triangle and a square copulate to give birth to a trapeziod, not in my 5 years of math and geometry in high school, so purple is not correct, even if the navy says so. It would be stupid, even if we assume that squares are blue, which would make some logical sense...

Montez: I remembered the 42-guesses only after I had disconnected, sorry 'bout that, explaining my quote and all.

 

[Montez]

I've never seen a triangle and a square copulate to give birth to a trapeziod, not in my 5 years of math and geometry in high school, so purple is not correct, even if the navy says so.

Trapezoid:a quadrilateral having only two sides parallel

Hmm, looks like it could be quite easy to draw two lines and come up with a square with two triangles on the side. Oh, everybody is saying it's impossible and ridiculous so it must just be my imagination though.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

That's assuming that height of the trapezoid is of equal length as the upper base. A general case of a trapezoid doesn't meet that prerequisite and therefore can't be decomposed into squares and triangles in any reasonable fashion.

We are really overanalysing this.

 

[Sander]

Actually, you're wrong, Ratty. You can decompose any trapezoid into squares and triangles, but the system of one square and two triangles can only work with the height equal to the smaller base.

 

[Montez]

That's assuming that height of the trapezoid is of equal length as the upper base. A general case of a trapezoid doesn't meet that prerequisite and therefore can't be decomposed into squares and triangles in any reasonable fashion.

First off, the point isn't how many triangles or squares, the point is that you can do it. You probably know more about it than I do, but my understanding is that a "general case" of a trapezoid is the definition: a quidrilateral with only two parallel sides - not a specific trapezoid. Yes, there are ones where it is simpler to break them up into two unequal triangles, or a rectangle and triangles. How does that solve or help to solve the problem though? The point is to find a simple relationship between all the elements - it doesn't have to fulfill every instance of every possible configuration and so on and so on, because it's not meant to be a scientific proof - which sadly enough no one seems to grasp.

It's a simple question meant to test your ability to come up with a reasonable solution in a short amount of time, and that's it. It's a riddle, geniuses, and debating it makes you look like an obtuse moron. Hey, let's all argue about how unreasonable the Sphinx's riddle is: "What walks on four legs in the morning, two legs in the afternoon, and three legs at night?"
"WTF, that riddle is stupid it doesn't make any sense and there isn't enough information given to solve it, waah waah waah."
"Well a baby uses its arms not an extra set of legs so therefore the riddle is irrational and meant to trick us."
Or *Insert convoluted and nonsensical "reasoning" here*

So since everyone and their mother has a problem with my solution, how about you all stop whining and harping on irrelevant shit and come up with an alternate solution with an explanation?

Edit: Rant is directed more at the codex people than nma people, just so you know.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Actually, you're wrong, Ratty. You can decompose any trapezoid into squares and triangles, but the system of one square and two triangles can only work with the height equal to the smaller base.

No shit. Read my post more carefully:

A general case of a trapezoid doesn't meet that prerequisite and therefore can't be decomposed into squares and triangles in any reasonable fashion.

You can decompose a freaking circle into squares and triangles if you really want, but that would be absurd. A trapezoid can be decomposed into n squares and m triangles in any concievable fashion, but that turns a clever logical problem into a pointless mathematical one and is far from a reasonable approach to the problem.

So since everyone and their mother has a problem with my solution, how about you all stop whining and harping on irrelevant shit and come up with an alternate solution with an explanation?

I don't have a problem with the solution (or the problem, for that matter) - I wasn't even referring to it. Your response to Elric seemed to imply that any trapezoid can be split into a square and two triangles, and I pointed out that wasn't correct.

 

[Murdoch]

All of you = silly math people.

My creative orange explanation above pwns all other explanations. After all, who needs logic when you can just make shit up? Besides conservatives who equate 'judicial activism' (whatever the fuck that is) with anti-religionist of course.

 

[drachton]

It depends. Red, blue, and yellow are usually considered to be the primary colors, because those are the colors that artists use to make other colors with paint and pigments. Television and similar devices use RGB, which is an color system based on the actual projection of light. There's also CMYK, which is used in printing.

So there are different definitions of what consitutes primary colors. As to whether it invalidates my assumption - RGB contains no yellow, so it doesn't work. CMYK contains no red, so it doesn't work. The RBY system is the only one that fits, so it's the only logical answer.

Edit: Thanks Wooz, I type way too slowly.

Not really, the so-called RBY color space has been out of use for a long time.

From this page:

For centuries, Red, Yellow and Blue were considered to be the primary colors. These colors were mixed to create an array of other colors. (Okay, it's not a conspiracy.) A great range of colors can be mixed from Red Yellow and Blue. Yellow can be seen as a shifted green, or Red and Blue as a shifted Magenta and Cyan.

From the Physics Hypertextbook:

The painter's color wheel is an historical artifact that refuses to die. The primary colors are not red, yellow, and blue. Painters and art teachers promote this scheme. It is a convenient way to understand how to mimic one color by mixing red, yellow, and blue. But these colors do not satisfy the definition of primary colors in that they can't reproduce the widest variety of colors when combined.

I was taught about the CMY color space in grade school, and even artists nowadays use CMY, so to get the right answer to this question, you basically need to have been taught wrong.

 

[alec]

Not really, the so-called RBY color space has been out of use for a long time.

I was taught about the CMY color space in grade school, and even artists nowadays use CMY, so to get the right answer to this question, you basically need to have been taught wrong.

He had to take the test when in the Navy SEALs.

That explains a lot.

 

[Montez]

I was taught about the CMY color space in grade school, and even artists nowadays use CMY, so to get the right answer to this question, you basically need to have been taught wrong.

No, you just have to know of the existence of RBY (which most people know about, except for those on Fallout forums, apparently) - it has nothing to do with being taught wrong. I appreciate the info though, I didn't know that CMY has replaced it in teaching. Is this in the US, by the way?

In other news, I'm going to take this thread and it's relatives as a sign of the impending doom of intellectualism and society in general due to the omnipresent litigiousness in our society. Remember kids, it's not whether you're right or wrong or whether you even have an answer at all, it's whether you're willing to argue until you're blue in the face about it (Or CYAN in the face I guess, lol lolololololol!!1!!1!!!). Practice makes perfect!

 

[drachton]

I was taught about the CMY color space in grade school, and even artists nowadays use CMY, so to get the right answer to this question, you basically need to have been taught wrong.

No, you just have to know of the existence of RBY (which most people know about, except for those on Fallout forums, apparently) - it has nothing to do with being taught wrong. I appreciate the info though, I didn't know that CMY has replaced it in teaching. Is this in the US, by the way?

No, I'm from Canada. Although I would think art education isn't something that's heavily standardized, so maybe it's up to the individual teachers to decide whether they teach the (apparently) traditonal RBY space.

On the other hand, I'm a grad student in an image processing lab, so maybe I've been using RGB, CMY and HSV so much these last years that I entirely forgot about RBY, who knows.

 

[Ashmo]

I was taught about the CMY color space in grade school, and even artists nowadays use CMY, so to get the right answer to this question, you basically need to have been taught wrong.

No, you just have to know of the existence of RBY (which most people know about, except for those on Fallout forums, apparently) - it has nothing to do with being taught wrong. I appreciate the info though, I didn't know that CMY has replaced it in teaching. Is this in the US, by the way?

Depends. RBY is the colour system used by painters (as in painting pretty pictures). RGB is the colour system used in technological fields and multimedial design (as well as CMYK, which is what print design uses).

RGB is based on the actual primary colours white light is composed of. By adding R, G and B you get white (hence black = 0%/0%/0% and white = 100%/100%/100% on RGB).

CMYK works the opposite way RGB does (100% C + 100% M + 100% Y would give you black -- or at least a very very dark umbra, which is why there is four colour printing with black as a seperate colour). For more see the Wikipedia article on that topic.

The problem with the riddle is that it is based on the assumption that you spend more time working with RBY than RGB/CMYK. This is obviously not true for everyone (especially not for me, which is why my brain exploded when someone said "purple").

Additionally the expectation of the testee answering "purple" or "red" is rather irritating.

If triangles are red and circles are yellow, trapezoids could just as well be green if you follow the logic that the actual shape of a trapezoid is derived from a square rather than being made up of multiple squares and/or triangles.
From a programming perspective I'd think of rectangles, trapezoids and so on to be derived from squares (apart from squares actually being possibly derived from rectangles because a square IS a special rectangle) just as I'd think of a circle being derived from an ellipse.

This riddle is absurd and very badly constructed.