A simple puzzle to play
$begingroup$
How many possible ways can you completely draw this figure?
Conditions:
1 - Once you start to draw you can’t take your pencil off of the paper.
2 - You can’t trace along a line already drawn.
pattern
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How many possible ways can you completely draw this figure?
Conditions:
1 - Once you start to draw you can’t take your pencil off of the paper.
2 - You can’t trace along a line already drawn.
pattern
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How many possible ways can you completely draw this figure?
Conditions:
1 - Once you start to draw you can’t take your pencil off of the paper.
2 - You can’t trace along a line already drawn.
pattern
$endgroup$
How many possible ways can you completely draw this figure?
Conditions:
1 - Once you start to draw you can’t take your pencil off of the paper.
2 - You can’t trace along a line already drawn.
pattern
pattern
edited Feb 8 at 14:56
AHKieran
5,0661040
5,0661040
asked Feb 8 at 14:48
Dicul SmerdDicul Smerd
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is really a job for a computer rather than a human being, but never mind. (I will check my answer with a computer after posting it...)
[EDITED to add:] Looks like I missed exactly 48 routes. Corrections are below. I confess that I used a computer to check the total and help find what I'd missed.
You have to start at one of the bottom corners and end at the other. (Because any vertex of odd degree has to be the start or the end of the path, and there are exactly two of those.) Without loss of generality let's start at bottom left and end at bottom right; this will give us exactly half of the paths.
Call the vertices of the square, reading clockwise from bottom left, ABCD; and call the middle of the square X. We always start at A. We must visit X twice, with each of A,B,C,D coming before or after it just once. Call two of A,B,C,D "partners" if we visit one of them, then X, then the other. We may have A,B and C,D partners; or A,C and B,D; or A,D and B,C.
If A,B and C,D are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AB,CD edges. We will go between each of the pairs {A,B}, {B,C}, {C,D} exactly twice, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/8 of the paths. Now we must start ABA (which must continue DCBCD) or ABC (which may continue BADCD or DCBAD) or AD (which must continue CBABCD). That's 4 paths, or 32 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
[EDITED to add:] I missed ABCDABCD. So 40 rather than 32 paths.
If A,D and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AD,BC edges. We will go between {A,D} exactly twice and between {B,C} exactly three times, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/12 of the paths. Now we must start ABC (in which case we can't proceed to D because then we can't get back to B,C, so we must continue BCDAD) or ADA (in which case we must continue BCBCD) or ADCB (in which case again we can't proceed to A so must continue CBAD). That's 3 paths, or 36 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
If A,C and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to the graph we already had with the reinterpretation that the diagonals are two separate edges and don't meet in the middle. We will travel exactly twice between B,C, so if we don't distinguish between the "parallel" edges between those vertices we will count exactly 1/2 of the paths. Now there's a symmetry between B,C so if we also assume we visit B before C then we will count exactly 1/4 of the paths instead. Now our possible beginnings are ABC, ABD, ADB, and by mere brute force I think our options are ABCBDCAD, ABCBDACD; ABDACBCD, ABDCBCAD; ADBACBCD, ADBCABCD, ADBCBACD. That's 7 paths, or 28 after un-ignoring those symmetries.
[EDITED to add:] I missed rather a lot here. After ABC we can go straight to D and then we can traverse the remaining four vertices in either direction (two more paths with symmetries ignored -> 8 more in total). Or we can go to A, then D, and traverse the remaining three in either directions (another 2/8 more). After ABD or ADB there are just the options I listed above. So I'm 16 short: not 28 but 44.
In summary,
we have a total of 40+36+44=120 routes. And that was all starting at A rather than at D, so the total number is twice that or 240.
Here, in case anyone cares, is the computer code, in Python. It's not very efficient, but it doesn't need to be: it was much faster than I was, and got the right answer straight away :-).
def e(prefix, target, edges):
last = prefix[-1]
if not edges:
if last == target: yield prefix
return
for edge in edges:
if last in edge:
if last==edge[0]: other=edge[1]
else: other=edge[0]
yield from e(prefix+other, target, edges-{edge})
print(list(e('A','D',{'AB','BP','PC','BQ','QC','CD','AD','AX','BX','CX','DX'})))
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've (very quickly) found 36:
Each can be reversed and flipped over the y-axis
Edit: I've exhausted my ideas and effort for this, someone feel free to add more!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I went ahead and did this with a computer. Of course, @Gareth had already done it by then. I can confirm his answer of:
240 (Two times the 120 graphed below which all start at the bottom left)
Here's a computer-generated version of the graphs:
Old answer and salient warning about trying to go through things systematically before coffee:
I make it
72 (these and their reverse and one that I missed which should be in the third row between 3 and 4)
They are
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infinite. You can fold the paper, use other papers to traverse onto and off of, etc.
The rules do not make such a strategy illegal, therefore such a solution is valid. :)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "559"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79445%2fa-simple-puzzle-to-play%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is really a job for a computer rather than a human being, but never mind. (I will check my answer with a computer after posting it...)
[EDITED to add:] Looks like I missed exactly 48 routes. Corrections are below. I confess that I used a computer to check the total and help find what I'd missed.
You have to start at one of the bottom corners and end at the other. (Because any vertex of odd degree has to be the start or the end of the path, and there are exactly two of those.) Without loss of generality let's start at bottom left and end at bottom right; this will give us exactly half of the paths.
Call the vertices of the square, reading clockwise from bottom left, ABCD; and call the middle of the square X. We always start at A. We must visit X twice, with each of A,B,C,D coming before or after it just once. Call two of A,B,C,D "partners" if we visit one of them, then X, then the other. We may have A,B and C,D partners; or A,C and B,D; or A,D and B,C.
If A,B and C,D are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AB,CD edges. We will go between each of the pairs {A,B}, {B,C}, {C,D} exactly twice, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/8 of the paths. Now we must start ABA (which must continue DCBCD) or ABC (which may continue BADCD or DCBAD) or AD (which must continue CBABCD). That's 4 paths, or 32 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
[EDITED to add:] I missed ABCDABCD. So 40 rather than 32 paths.
If A,D and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AD,BC edges. We will go between {A,D} exactly twice and between {B,C} exactly three times, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/12 of the paths. Now we must start ABC (in which case we can't proceed to D because then we can't get back to B,C, so we must continue BCDAD) or ADA (in which case we must continue BCBCD) or ADCB (in which case again we can't proceed to A so must continue CBAD). That's 3 paths, or 36 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
If A,C and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to the graph we already had with the reinterpretation that the diagonals are two separate edges and don't meet in the middle. We will travel exactly twice between B,C, so if we don't distinguish between the "parallel" edges between those vertices we will count exactly 1/2 of the paths. Now there's a symmetry between B,C so if we also assume we visit B before C then we will count exactly 1/4 of the paths instead. Now our possible beginnings are ABC, ABD, ADB, and by mere brute force I think our options are ABCBDCAD, ABCBDACD; ABDACBCD, ABDCBCAD; ADBACBCD, ADBCABCD, ADBCBACD. That's 7 paths, or 28 after un-ignoring those symmetries.
[EDITED to add:] I missed rather a lot here. After ABC we can go straight to D and then we can traverse the remaining four vertices in either direction (two more paths with symmetries ignored -> 8 more in total). Or we can go to A, then D, and traverse the remaining three in either directions (another 2/8 more). After ABD or ADB there are just the options I listed above. So I'm 16 short: not 28 but 44.
In summary,
we have a total of 40+36+44=120 routes. And that was all starting at A rather than at D, so the total number is twice that or 240.
Here, in case anyone cares, is the computer code, in Python. It's not very efficient, but it doesn't need to be: it was much faster than I was, and got the right answer straight away :-).
def e(prefix, target, edges):
last = prefix[-1]
if not edges:
if last == target: yield prefix
return
for edge in edges:
if last in edge:
if last==edge[0]: other=edge[1]
else: other=edge[0]
yield from e(prefix+other, target, edges-{edge})
print(list(e('A','D',{'AB','BP','PC','BQ','QC','CD','AD','AX','BX','CX','DX'})))
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is really a job for a computer rather than a human being, but never mind. (I will check my answer with a computer after posting it...)
[EDITED to add:] Looks like I missed exactly 48 routes. Corrections are below. I confess that I used a computer to check the total and help find what I'd missed.
You have to start at one of the bottom corners and end at the other. (Because any vertex of odd degree has to be the start or the end of the path, and there are exactly two of those.) Without loss of generality let's start at bottom left and end at bottom right; this will give us exactly half of the paths.
Call the vertices of the square, reading clockwise from bottom left, ABCD; and call the middle of the square X. We always start at A. We must visit X twice, with each of A,B,C,D coming before or after it just once. Call two of A,B,C,D "partners" if we visit one of them, then X, then the other. We may have A,B and C,D partners; or A,C and B,D; or A,D and B,C.
If A,B and C,D are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AB,CD edges. We will go between each of the pairs {A,B}, {B,C}, {C,D} exactly twice, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/8 of the paths. Now we must start ABA (which must continue DCBCD) or ABC (which may continue BADCD or DCBAD) or AD (which must continue CBABCD). That's 4 paths, or 32 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
[EDITED to add:] I missed ABCDABCD. So 40 rather than 32 paths.
If A,D and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AD,BC edges. We will go between {A,D} exactly twice and between {B,C} exactly three times, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/12 of the paths. Now we must start ABC (in which case we can't proceed to D because then we can't get back to B,C, so we must continue BCDAD) or ADA (in which case we must continue BCBCD) or ADCB (in which case again we can't proceed to A so must continue CBAD). That's 3 paths, or 36 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
If A,C and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to the graph we already had with the reinterpretation that the diagonals are two separate edges and don't meet in the middle. We will travel exactly twice between B,C, so if we don't distinguish between the "parallel" edges between those vertices we will count exactly 1/2 of the paths. Now there's a symmetry between B,C so if we also assume we visit B before C then we will count exactly 1/4 of the paths instead. Now our possible beginnings are ABC, ABD, ADB, and by mere brute force I think our options are ABCBDCAD, ABCBDACD; ABDACBCD, ABDCBCAD; ADBACBCD, ADBCABCD, ADBCBACD. That's 7 paths, or 28 after un-ignoring those symmetries.
[EDITED to add:] I missed rather a lot here. After ABC we can go straight to D and then we can traverse the remaining four vertices in either direction (two more paths with symmetries ignored -> 8 more in total). Or we can go to A, then D, and traverse the remaining three in either directions (another 2/8 more). After ABD or ADB there are just the options I listed above. So I'm 16 short: not 28 but 44.
In summary,
we have a total of 40+36+44=120 routes. And that was all starting at A rather than at D, so the total number is twice that or 240.
Here, in case anyone cares, is the computer code, in Python. It's not very efficient, but it doesn't need to be: it was much faster than I was, and got the right answer straight away :-).
def e(prefix, target, edges):
last = prefix[-1]
if not edges:
if last == target: yield prefix
return
for edge in edges:
if last in edge:
if last==edge[0]: other=edge[1]
else: other=edge[0]
yield from e(prefix+other, target, edges-{edge})
print(list(e('A','D',{'AB','BP','PC','BQ','QC','CD','AD','AX','BX','CX','DX'})))
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is really a job for a computer rather than a human being, but never mind. (I will check my answer with a computer after posting it...)
[EDITED to add:] Looks like I missed exactly 48 routes. Corrections are below. I confess that I used a computer to check the total and help find what I'd missed.
You have to start at one of the bottom corners and end at the other. (Because any vertex of odd degree has to be the start or the end of the path, and there are exactly two of those.) Without loss of generality let's start at bottom left and end at bottom right; this will give us exactly half of the paths.
Call the vertices of the square, reading clockwise from bottom left, ABCD; and call the middle of the square X. We always start at A. We must visit X twice, with each of A,B,C,D coming before or after it just once. Call two of A,B,C,D "partners" if we visit one of them, then X, then the other. We may have A,B and C,D partners; or A,C and B,D; or A,D and B,C.
If A,B and C,D are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AB,CD edges. We will go between each of the pairs {A,B}, {B,C}, {C,D} exactly twice, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/8 of the paths. Now we must start ABA (which must continue DCBCD) or ABC (which may continue BADCD or DCBAD) or AD (which must continue CBABCD). That's 4 paths, or 32 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
[EDITED to add:] I missed ABCDABCD. So 40 rather than 32 paths.
If A,D and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AD,BC edges. We will go between {A,D} exactly twice and between {B,C} exactly three times, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/12 of the paths. Now we must start ABC (in which case we can't proceed to D because then we can't get back to B,C, so we must continue BCDAD) or ADA (in which case we must continue BCBCD) or ADCB (in which case again we can't proceed to A so must continue CBAD). That's 3 paths, or 36 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
If A,C and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to the graph we already had with the reinterpretation that the diagonals are two separate edges and don't meet in the middle. We will travel exactly twice between B,C, so if we don't distinguish between the "parallel" edges between those vertices we will count exactly 1/2 of the paths. Now there's a symmetry between B,C so if we also assume we visit B before C then we will count exactly 1/4 of the paths instead. Now our possible beginnings are ABC, ABD, ADB, and by mere brute force I think our options are ABCBDCAD, ABCBDACD; ABDACBCD, ABDCBCAD; ADBACBCD, ADBCABCD, ADBCBACD. That's 7 paths, or 28 after un-ignoring those symmetries.
[EDITED to add:] I missed rather a lot here. After ABC we can go straight to D and then we can traverse the remaining four vertices in either direction (two more paths with symmetries ignored -> 8 more in total). Or we can go to A, then D, and traverse the remaining three in either directions (another 2/8 more). After ABD or ADB there are just the options I listed above. So I'm 16 short: not 28 but 44.
In summary,
we have a total of 40+36+44=120 routes. And that was all starting at A rather than at D, so the total number is twice that or 240.
Here, in case anyone cares, is the computer code, in Python. It's not very efficient, but it doesn't need to be: it was much faster than I was, and got the right answer straight away :-).
def e(prefix, target, edges):
last = prefix[-1]
if not edges:
if last == target: yield prefix
return
for edge in edges:
if last in edge:
if last==edge[0]: other=edge[1]
else: other=edge[0]
yield from e(prefix+other, target, edges-{edge})
print(list(e('A','D',{'AB','BP','PC','BQ','QC','CD','AD','AX','BX','CX','DX'})))
$endgroup$
This is really a job for a computer rather than a human being, but never mind. (I will check my answer with a computer after posting it...)
[EDITED to add:] Looks like I missed exactly 48 routes. Corrections are below. I confess that I used a computer to check the total and help find what I'd missed.
You have to start at one of the bottom corners and end at the other. (Because any vertex of odd degree has to be the start or the end of the path, and there are exactly two of those.) Without loss of generality let's start at bottom left and end at bottom right; this will give us exactly half of the paths.
Call the vertices of the square, reading clockwise from bottom left, ABCD; and call the middle of the square X. We always start at A. We must visit X twice, with each of A,B,C,D coming before or after it just once. Call two of A,B,C,D "partners" if we visit one of them, then X, then the other. We may have A,B and C,D partners; or A,C and B,D; or A,D and B,C.
If A,B and C,D are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AB,CD edges. We will go between each of the pairs {A,B}, {B,C}, {C,D} exactly twice, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/8 of the paths. Now we must start ABA (which must continue DCBCD) or ABC (which may continue BADCD or DCBAD) or AD (which must continue CBABCD). That's 4 paths, or 32 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
[EDITED to add:] I missed ABCDABCD. So 40 rather than 32 paths.
If A,D and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to a graph without X but with extra AD,BC edges. We will go between {A,D} exactly twice and between {B,C} exactly three times, so if we don't bother to record which edge we choose each time then we will count exactly 1/12 of the paths. Now we must start ABC (in which case we can't proceed to D because then we can't get back to B,C, so we must continue BCDAD) or ADA (in which case we must continue BCBCD) or ADCB (in which case again we can't proceed to A so must continue CBAD). That's 3 paths, or 36 when we bother to distinguish "parallel" edges.
If A,C and B,C are partners, this is equivalent to the graph we already had with the reinterpretation that the diagonals are two separate edges and don't meet in the middle. We will travel exactly twice between B,C, so if we don't distinguish between the "parallel" edges between those vertices we will count exactly 1/2 of the paths. Now there's a symmetry between B,C so if we also assume we visit B before C then we will count exactly 1/4 of the paths instead. Now our possible beginnings are ABC, ABD, ADB, and by mere brute force I think our options are ABCBDCAD, ABCBDACD; ABDACBCD, ABDCBCAD; ADBACBCD, ADBCABCD, ADBCBACD. That's 7 paths, or 28 after un-ignoring those symmetries.
[EDITED to add:] I missed rather a lot here. After ABC we can go straight to D and then we can traverse the remaining four vertices in either direction (two more paths with symmetries ignored -> 8 more in total). Or we can go to A, then D, and traverse the remaining three in either directions (another 2/8 more). After ABD or ADB there are just the options I listed above. So I'm 16 short: not 28 but 44.
In summary,
we have a total of 40+36+44=120 routes. And that was all starting at A rather than at D, so the total number is twice that or 240.
Here, in case anyone cares, is the computer code, in Python. It's not very efficient, but it doesn't need to be: it was much faster than I was, and got the right answer straight away :-).
def e(prefix, target, edges):
last = prefix[-1]
if not edges:
if last == target: yield prefix
return
for edge in edges:
if last in edge:
if last==edge[0]: other=edge[1]
else: other=edge[0]
yield from e(prefix+other, target, edges-{edge})
print(list(e('A','D',{'AB','BP','PC','BQ','QC','CD','AD','AX','BX','CX','DX'})))
edited Feb 8 at 17:57
answered Feb 8 at 17:27
Gareth McCaughan♦Gareth McCaughan
62.5k3161245
62.5k3161245
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
$begingroup$
I can confirm this is the correct answer...
$endgroup$
– Dr Xorile
Feb 8 at 19:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've (very quickly) found 36:
Each can be reversed and flipped over the y-axis
Edit: I've exhausted my ideas and effort for this, someone feel free to add more!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've (very quickly) found 36:
Each can be reversed and flipped over the y-axis
Edit: I've exhausted my ideas and effort for this, someone feel free to add more!
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've (very quickly) found 36:
Each can be reversed and flipped over the y-axis
Edit: I've exhausted my ideas and effort for this, someone feel free to add more!
$endgroup$
I've (very quickly) found 36:
Each can be reversed and flipped over the y-axis
Edit: I've exhausted my ideas and effort for this, someone feel free to add more!
edited Feb 8 at 15:35
answered Feb 8 at 15:02
GregGreg
2,251319
2,251319
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
I've never thought about using the cross in the centre as a turning point and doing >< instead of x....
$endgroup$
– AHKieran
Feb 8 at 15:05
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
$begingroup$
@AHKieran yeah! I wasn't sure if it would be possible but wanted to see!
$endgroup$
– Greg
Feb 8 at 15:11
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I went ahead and did this with a computer. Of course, @Gareth had already done it by then. I can confirm his answer of:
240 (Two times the 120 graphed below which all start at the bottom left)
Here's a computer-generated version of the graphs:
Old answer and salient warning about trying to go through things systematically before coffee:
I make it
72 (these and their reverse and one that I missed which should be in the third row between 3 and 4)
They are
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I went ahead and did this with a computer. Of course, @Gareth had already done it by then. I can confirm his answer of:
240 (Two times the 120 graphed below which all start at the bottom left)
Here's a computer-generated version of the graphs:
Old answer and salient warning about trying to go through things systematically before coffee:
I make it
72 (these and their reverse and one that I missed which should be in the third row between 3 and 4)
They are
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I went ahead and did this with a computer. Of course, @Gareth had already done it by then. I can confirm his answer of:
240 (Two times the 120 graphed below which all start at the bottom left)
Here's a computer-generated version of the graphs:
Old answer and salient warning about trying to go through things systematically before coffee:
I make it
72 (these and their reverse and one that I missed which should be in the third row between 3 and 4)
They are
$endgroup$
I went ahead and did this with a computer. Of course, @Gareth had already done it by then. I can confirm his answer of:
240 (Two times the 120 graphed below which all start at the bottom left)
Here's a computer-generated version of the graphs:
Old answer and salient warning about trying to go through things systematically before coffee:
I make it
72 (these and their reverse and one that I missed which should be in the third row between 3 and 4)
They are
edited Feb 8 at 19:49
answered Feb 8 at 16:22
Dr XorileDr Xorile
12.3k22569
12.3k22569
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
$begingroup$
You are everywhere!,!!!!
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infinite. You can fold the paper, use other papers to traverse onto and off of, etc.
The rules do not make such a strategy illegal, therefore such a solution is valid. :)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infinite. You can fold the paper, use other papers to traverse onto and off of, etc.
The rules do not make such a strategy illegal, therefore such a solution is valid. :)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Infinite. You can fold the paper, use other papers to traverse onto and off of, etc.
The rules do not make such a strategy illegal, therefore such a solution is valid. :)
$endgroup$
Infinite. You can fold the paper, use other papers to traverse onto and off of, etc.
The rules do not make such a strategy illegal, therefore such a solution is valid. :)
edited Feb 10 at 9:18
Community♦
1
1
answered Feb 9 at 1:50
Tyler HoppeTyler Hoppe
211
211
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
1
1
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
Interesting idea... would you be able to demonstrate a method of actually doing so, so that it is more clear what exactly you mean?
$endgroup$
– mmking
Feb 9 at 2:28
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
$begingroup$
@Tylerhoppe please demonstrate your anwere more specifically
$endgroup$
– Dicul Smerd
Feb 9 at 15:02
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f79445%2fa-simple-puzzle-to-play%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown