User Panel
[#1]
Quoted: okay incase I did mess the math here is it laid out in excell, not figured in excell just used as a format https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/497353/excell_jpg2965516.JPG View Quote Yeah, it's not figured in Excel. Try again. If you aren't doing the math correctly, and you're not using Excel, you might wanna phone a friend. 

[#2]
Quoted: which the riddle did not say, its says speeds can change. again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable. which is the speed at every moment. it just cant be done. math needs constants to solve the problem and no location and time answer of l1xs1=l2xs2 does not work ( l = location s= speed ). You can solve for l1 and l2 by picking a spot, but with out s1 or s2 you can not say the time is right. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: your next statement ruins your answer . the distance matter if they are to be in the same place. if one walked for 4 hours and covered half the distance say 6 miles and the other walks .25% faster at 4 hour he walked 6x1.25 or 7.5 miles. that is not the same place. which the riddle did not say, its says speeds can change. again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable. which is the speed at every moment. it just cant be done. math needs constants to solve the problem and no location and time answer of l1xs1=l2xs2 does not work ( l = location s= speed ). You can solve for l1 and l2 by picking a spot, but with out s1 or s2 you can not say the time is right. "again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable" False. Answers can have unknown variables. This riddle is a prime example. This is a yes or no question... the time and location can be variable as fuck, doesn't change the yes or no answer. 

[#3]
Quoted: My challenge to you is to step this in smaller increments. Go for a 15 minutes, or every minute, or every second. Throw out your notion that somehow you have to specify a location and then 'prove' the monk is at that location at different times of the day. View Quote Yes I meant 25% faster. Okay throw out the location and at what speed that changes every 15 changes slightly for both and solve for how many hours it took the paths to cross. its simple you cant, yes this is the mathematical trick here if you never know the speed, you never know when the times would cross. and if you cant solve for the unknown speed you cant solve for the location. The internet answer of think of it as two monks walking opposite directions is not valid, its the cheat answer. as the first day all the times and distances are set, but unknown except beginning and ending. even the internet says it can be answered, so it changes the rules to "think of it as two monks" but that is not what the riddle says, its changing it after the fact. 

[#4]
Quoted: But first the op says they are not traveling at the same speed and its variable with speeds and rests. Plus it is not two monks walking to each other, it is one walking the opposite path he did the day before. Different speeds at any points means he can not be at the same point at the same time as he was the day before. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: @FS7, I posted all the equations on page 4 post 17 and included an example. However, StaccatoC2 claims toward the end of page 5 that they aren't correct because I used an average speed instead of variable. So, I think, in his mind, 2 trains that started moving at the same time going in opposite directions toward each other on the same track would not hit each other if they varied their speeds. They would only be in the same spot at the same time if they each maintained a constant speed. I don't know what else to say. But first the op says they are not traveling at the same speed and its variable with speeds and rests. Plus it is not two monks walking to each other, it is one walking the opposite path he did the day before. Different speeds at any points means he can not be at the same point at the same time as he was the day before. I remember when I got off the phone with yelling at an idiot in a call center and my boss asked me: Who is the bigger idiot: the dumb person on the other end of the phone, or you who is insisting on arguing with the dumb person on the other end of the phone. This dude is the call center representative 

[#5]
Quoted: "again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable" False. Answers can have unknown variables. This riddle is a prime example. This is a yes or no question... the time and location can be variable as fuck, doesn't change the yes or no answer. View Quote I agree to a point, at best the answer is maybe. yes shades of gray, but very unlikely. If you could program a computer to do this 10,000 times with variable speeds and it said no 9,999 times and yes once ( basically luck at getting the right speeds ) do you say the answer is yes and ignore the other 9,999 no's. 

[#6]
Quoted: I remember when I got off the phone with yelling at an idiot in a call center and my boss asked me: Who is the bigger idiot: the dumb person on the other end of the phone, or you who is insisting on arguing with the dumb person on the other end of the phone. This dude is the call center representative View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: @FS7, I posted all the equations on page 4 post 17 and included an example. However, StaccatoC2 claims toward the end of page 5 that they aren't correct because I used an average speed instead of variable. So, I think, in his mind, 2 trains that started moving at the same time going in opposite directions toward each other on the same track would not hit each other if they varied their speeds. They would only be in the same spot at the same time if they each maintained a constant speed. I don't know what else to say. But first the op says they are not traveling at the same speed and its variable with speeds and rests. Plus it is not two monks walking to each other, it is one walking the opposite path he did the day before. Different speeds at any points means he can not be at the same point at the same time as he was the day before. I remember when I got off the phone with yelling at an idiot in a call center and my boss asked me: Who is the bigger idiot: the dumb person on the other end of the phone, or you who is insisting on arguing with the dumb person on the other end of the phone. This dude is the call center representative Attached File 

[#8]
Hey, if you're stuck on the different days and the uphill path being 'locked in place'... why not specify that path?
Make the monk travel uphill as variably as you want, so long as he starts at the bottom at 8am and ends at the top at 8pm. I'll play that 'monk'. You play the 'second monk'. Here's the rules. I won't deviate from the monk's uphill path. You get to pick any rate of speed for any time for your second monk. My job is to tag you. Your job is to get down the hill without me tagging you. We'll alternate moves, with you starting. On your move, you decide how much time you want to spend and how fast you want to descend. At the end of your move, I'll advance the clock to that time and figure out where my monk is in relation to your monk: 1. If you are still above me, I must PASS my move. 2. If you are below me, I get to rewind the clock so that you are above me, but not rewind it all the way to your last position. 3. We're at the same location, in which case I tag you. You win if you are BELOW me and I'm unable to rewind the clock to put you back above me. I win if we're at the same location. Whole numbers are preferred. 

[#9]
Quoted: Yes I meant 25% faster. Okay throw out the location and at what speed that changes every 15 changes slightly for both and solve for how many hours it took the paths to cross. its simple you cant, yes this is the mathematical trick here if you never know the speed, you never know when the times would cross. and if you cant solve for the unknown speed you cant solve for the location. The internet answer of think of it as two monks walking opposite directions is not valid, its the cheat answer. as the first day all the times and distances are set, but unknown except beginning and ending. even the internet says it can be answered, so it changes the rules to "think of it as two monks" but that is not what the riddle says, its changing it after the fact. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: My challenge to you is to step this in smaller increments. Go for a 15 minutes, or every minute, or every second. Throw out your notion that somehow you have to specify a location and then 'prove' the monk is at that location at different times of the day. Yes I meant 25% faster. Okay throw out the location and at what speed that changes every 15 changes slightly for both and solve for how many hours it took the paths to cross. its simple you cant, yes this is the mathematical trick here if you never know the speed, you never know when the times would cross. and if you cant solve for the unknown speed you cant solve for the location. The internet answer of think of it as two monks walking opposite directions is not valid, its the cheat answer. as the first day all the times and distances are set, but unknown except beginning and ending. even the internet says it can be answered, so it changes the rules to "think of it as two monks" but that is not what the riddle says, its changing it after the fact. Answer the riddle, or solve for where and when? Remember, unless you're changing it after the fact it's answering the riddle. What did the riddle ask, again? Oh: "Is there a spot along the path that the monk will pass at precisely the same time of day on both trips?" "Is there a spot", not what spot. "at the precisely the same time", not what time. The answer is Yes. I've explained why, and graphed it using your numbers, and yet you refuse to believe that it can happen, much less that it must. Is there any explanation you'll accept? 

[#10]
Quoted: I agree to a point, at best the answer is maybe. yes shades of gray, but very unlikely. If you could program a computer to do this 10,000 times with variable speeds and it said no 9,999 times and yes once ( basically luck at getting the right speeds ) do you say the answer is yes and ignore the other 9,999 no's. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: "again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable" False. Answers can have unknown variables. This riddle is a prime example. This is a yes or no question... the time and location can be variable as fuck, doesn't change the yes or no answer. I agree to a point, at best the answer is maybe. yes shades of gray, but very unlikely. If you could program a computer to do this 10,000 times with variable speeds and it said no 9,999 times and yes once ( basically luck at getting the right speeds ) do you say the answer is yes and ignore the other 9,999 no's. It's 10,000 yesses. Are you a spatially oriented person? 

[#11]
I think this thread has run it's course. This could very easily be done with two people standing apart from one another and then walking towards one another. Their only objective is to start at the same time and get to each other's start point at the same time.
Eventually their paths will cross if they follow those rules. At that instant, they are in the same spot at the same time. Now substitute the 2nd person for "you" on the next day. 

[#12]


[#13]
Quoted: Yes. If there is one path to travel upon down to up and up to down the monk has no other choice but to occupy one portion of that trail at the same time on each trip (up/down). The trip up is slower possibly on the way up rather than the way down, the monk might pause longer in one direction or the other, but the trail is constrained and the monk must cross all the same points down as up and therefore one of those points is going to be the same time up and down. View Quote 

[#14]
How wide is the path?
Or are we assuming facts not in evidence? ETA: This is a 4 dimensional question. A constraint on length has been established (point to point). A constraint in height has been established (again point to point). A constraint on time has been established, specifically 12 hours. However failing a constraint on width, and even assuming the monk follows the same path, a path wide enough to allow the monk to meander breaks the distance constraint which cause the question, as presented, to fail. 

[#15]
Quoted: I won't deviate from the monk's uphill path. You get to pick any rate of speed for any time for your second monk. My job is to tag you. View Quote First morning. Second that is not what the riddle says, it said you walkup up yesterday. What was you location when you have done 48% of the path. I asked in % of the path because we don't have a distance. Or if you can't answer that how many hours where you in to the walk when you where 48% of the distance. Again you can't answer as you don't have a speed. Until you answer the above. You can't say a location in any format. So pick a distance and the amount of time passes. 

[#16]
Quoted: This is my reasoning as well. Plus the difference between up hill and down will mean an even more varied speed. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: When hiking my speed isnt constant so i would argue no This is my reasoning as well. Plus the difference between up hill and down will mean an even more varied speed. Explain how speed prevents the monk from meeting his former self 24 hours prior. 

[#17]
@StaccatoC2,
What do/did you do for a living? Purchasing, marketing, landscaping...? Please don't say engineering. 

[#18]
He's always going to be the shitbird welcher who made bets with multiple people and tried to use his own impenetrable wall of ignorance to prevent coughing up the mags. Took the trolling a tad too far.
Let me guess too, the "mod he contacted" was just like Tim Scott's girlfriend from another school. 

[#19]
The best thing about this is that it isn't something the OP cooked up, it's an 80 year old logic problem thought up by a german psychologist as a test of cognition, and has been thoroughly analyzed for years.


[#20]


[#22]


[#23]
Quoted: First morning. Second that is not what the riddle says, it said you walkup up yesterday. What was you location when you have done 48% of the path. I asked in % of the path because we don't have a distance. Or if you can't answer that how many hours where you in to the walk when you where 48% of the distance. Again you can't answer as you don't have a speed. Until you answer the above. You can't say a location in any format. So pick a distance and the amount of time passes. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I won't deviate from the monk's uphill path. You get to pick any rate of speed for any time for your second monk. My job is to tag you. First morning. Second that is not what the riddle says, it said you walkup up yesterday. What was you location when you have done 48% of the path. I asked in % of the path because we don't have a distance. Or if you can't answer that how many hours where you in to the walk when you where 48% of the distance. Again you can't answer as you don't have a speed. Until you answer the above. You can't say a location in any format. So pick a distance and the amount of time passes. The only location I've provided you has been the graph based on numbers YOU provided. You provided some fucky inconsistent numbers, by the way. Now you are trying to walk away from hard numbers and towards a 'yes' answer, but no time/location specified? That's kinda the point of the riddle, hoss. 

[#24]
Quoted: which the riddle did not say, its says speeds can change. again you can not methodically prove anything when there is an unknown variable. which is the speed at every moment. it just cant be done. math needs constants to solve the problem and no location and time answer of l1xs1=l2xs2 does not work ( l = location s= speed ). You can solve for l1 and l2 by picking a spot, but with out s1 or s2 you can not say the time is right. View Quote You are wrong. Everybody is telling you that you are wrong. The answer has been explained countless times. Are you going to make good on your bet today? 

[#25]
Quoted: Nah, good engineers excel at cutting through bullshit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: i'd say engineering is likely. he cant take yes for an answer because with the unknowns he cant calculate the exact place and time. Nah, good engineers excel at cutting through bullshit. Attached File 

[#26]
Quoted: First morning. Second that is not what the riddle says, it said you walkup up yesterday. What was you location when you have done 48% of the path. I asked in % of the path because we don't have a distance. Or if you can't answer that how many hours where you in to the walk when you where 48% of the distance. Again you can't answer as you don't have a speed. Until you answer the above. You can't say a location in any format. So pick a distance and the amount of time passes. View Quote Surely you understand that you can determine a location without calculating a location, right? I mean, you can determine where you are at, without calculating where you are at. I think you are getting hung up on distance. Everyone else is talking about location on a single path. Monk A can be determined by distance monk A walked. Monk B (same monk, different day) will be total distance MINUS distance walked by monk B. You understand that 0 > N and N > 0 have to cross somewhere if graphed by time. The intersection of that line shares BOTH TIME AND LOCATION. No one arguing against you is claiming one without the other. You seem to be claiming that they are, but THEY ARE NOT. Edit: Let's not look at this as a way to prove that we are right, lets look at it as a way to be right. If you can come up with a single graph, with a dedicated scale with X being time and Y being distance from the bottom of the mountain(or altitude), with a continuous slope, no matter the value of the slopes as long as one is positive (going up) and the other is negative (going down), that DO NOT intersect, then I will admit that I am wrong. 

[#27]
@low_country the bet with you was show the math, you have not done it. here we are 7 pages later and you have not posted one equation. @scuba_steve was the mod I contacted.
@sykkone maybe I did screw up on the math, and I would not be surprised. Do you accept the premise of the riddle is is it guaranteed that every time ( or even most ) the path the monk took up would match place and time of the monk on the way down. With the distance from bottom and time set on the first day ( at each distance having its own time ) ? @aggiesq electrician by trade, head estimator for a large electrical contractor. 30 years in the trade. 

[#28]
Quoted: @low_country the bet with you was show the math, you have not done it. here we are 7 pages later and you have not posted one equation. @scuba_steve was the mod I contacted. @sykkone maybe I did screw up on the math, and I would not be surprised. Do you accept the premise of the riddle is is it guaranteed that every time ( or even most ) the path the monk took up would match place and time of the monk on the way down. With the distance from bottom and time set on the first day ( at each distance having its own time ) ? @aggiesq electrician by trade, head estimator for a large electrical contractor. 30 years in the trade. View Quote Good god man... pay up already. 

[#30]
Quoted: @low_country the bet with you was show the math, you have not done it. here we are 7 pages later and you have not posted one equation. @scuba_steve was the mod I contacted. @sykkone maybe I did screw up on the math, and I would not be surprised. Do you accept the premise of the riddle is is it guaranteed that every time ( or even most ) the path the monk took up would match place and time of the monk on the way down. With the distance from bottom and time set on the first day ( at each distance having its own time ) ? @aggiesq electrician by trade, head estimator for a large electrical contractor. 30 years in the trade. View Quote You extended the bet to me and I showed the math. Your ignorance of math is not an excuse. The ascending monk's path is a continuous step function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_function If the monk is resting, then the step function does not change and is a flat line. If the monk is moving, the function is a straight line of some constant slope. If he changes speed, there is an inflection point, and the function is again a straight line of constant slope until he either changes speed or stops. There need not be any limit to the number of steps. He can stop or change speeds as many times as he wants. All we know is that x, the altitude, is a function of time t, and that f(0) = 0 and f(12) = the height of the mountain (say H), the distance traveled, or whatever. The only requirement is that the speed be in consistent units. If the height is in meters and the time is in hours, then the speed needs to be in meters per hour. The speed is reflected in the slope of each step. Similarly, the descending monk's path is a continuous step function. All of the above applies, except the slope of the moving sections is negative, and f(0) = H while f(12) = 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_value_theorem Since the monk cannot teleport (the functions are continuous) they must intersect at least once. If we allow for backtracking, then they must intersect an odd number of times. Pay up, or from now on I'll just refer to you as that shitbird welcher. If you don't get banned. 

[#32]
I am going to walk away from the thread, I messaged one bet and am going to pay him.
I will stand on the mod decision on the other bet. Did the bet party do what the bet was? And if the mod, or any mod for that matter says he fulfilled his part of the bet I will pay up. Being to show the math, or honestly even an attempt at it. Other wise I can see both sides of this, my mind looks at the math and says it does not work. But I look at what some have posted and it makes sense. But the math to me never works out ( not including many stupid errors ). The two monks walking still seems like a cheat, as per the riddle one has already walked. But I will state I cant prove I am right, and math if not proven right is wrong. 

[#34]
Quoted: I am going to walk away from the thread, I messaged one bet and am going to pay him. I will stand on the mod decision on the other bet. Did the bet party do what the bet was? And if the mod, or any mod for that matter says he fulfilled his part of the bet I will pay up. Being to show the math, or honestly even an attempt at it. Other wise I can see both sides of this, my mind looks at the math and says it does not work. But I look at what some have posted and it makes sense. But the math to me never works out ( not including many stupid errors ). The two monks walking still seems like a cheat, as per the riddle one has already walked. But I will state I cant prove I am right, and math if not proven right is wrong. View Quote You are a welcher. Full stop. The math and graphs have been shown to you over and over. You are wrong, and the answer to the riddle is not in question. Further, no moderataor adjucation was part of your offer. I hope everybody sees this thread and recognizes not to do any business with you in the EE. 

[#35]


[#36]
Quoted: He will welch on the bet because he believes that it hasn't been proven mathematically. THis is from the thread in 2017 http://i.imgur.com/Nh1rOZZ.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He's always going to be the shitbird welcher who made bets with multiple people and tried to use his own impenetrable wall of ignorance to prevent coughing up the mags. Took the trolling a tad too far. Let me guess too, the "mod he contacted" was just like Tim Scott's girlfriend from another school. He will welch on the bet because he believes that it hasn't been proven mathematically. THis is from the thread in 2017 http://i.imgur.com/Nh1rOZZ.jpg After reading the first page, I was going to propose that the doubters simply plot position vs time for each trip and try to demonstrate a scenario where it wouldn’t work. I’m glad that there is a figure that already illustrates that. 

[#37]
It's not my bet but this is killing me.
I would rather that you understand that they would be at the same point at the same instant in time than to get the pmag. Here's an experiment you can try at home. Start at one corner of your driveway where it meets the street and walk your property line clockwise until you get to the other corner of your driveway. Time how long it takes just to give us an idea. Let's say it takes 5 minutes (I have no idea). Now start at the first corner again, we'll call it the bottom of the mountain, and start walking the same loop. You are now the day 1 monk going up the mountain. At some point along the path, say at 3 minutes, put a marker on the ground and finish your hike to the top of the mountain, the second corner of the driveway. Now. Since some people think the monk walking on different days matters, you can go back to doing whatever you normally do until tomorrow morning to start the downward hike or you can do it now. It doesn't affect the outcome. So, you are now at the top of the mountain, the second corner of your driveway. Set your clock to zero and hit start on your timer. Adjust your walking speed and rest time so you get to the marker you left on the way up in 3 minutes. At the 3 minute mark, you have arrived at the same point at the same time while walking in both directions on the path. You can adjust the length of times, how long the path is, how fast you walk however you want but you will always pass the marker on the path that you left on the way up. If you get to the marker in less than the 3 minutes, you walked to fast. In more than 3, you walked too slow. The time I used was picked at random. You can't go down the path without passing the marker you left on the way up. Where that marker is doesn't matter. You will always pass it. Try it with a friend walking in the opposite direction. You will always pass him. Each of you vary your speeds. You will just pass each other in different spots but still at the same time since you both started walking at the same time. Now if you are the typical ARFcom millionaire you probably have an actual mountain you can use. Or you own so much property that you can't physically walk that far. In this case, take your longest rope and stretch it out to its full length and that becomes the path. It is really bothering me that you don't get this. Reminds me of trying to teach my mother algebra for her accounting degree. I'll never know how she passed. 

[#38]


[#39]


[#40]
Quoted: No I am willing to send the mag, 100 % willing. the question is did you fulfil your end, I said post the math, you never did. I will leave that up to a mod or staff. @DKProf @aimless View Quote Its not a math problem to be proved with some fancy calculus equations. Its a simple X Y chart showing time and distance. That is all that is needed. It has been posted over and over. And your refusal to accept the unrefuted answer doesn't change that. 

[#41]
For anyone who seriously doesn’t get it: Try grossly oversimplifying it.
At 8:am on Monday a monk walks up a stairway leading to the top of a very short mountain. There are 3 steps on this stairway. Just 3 steps, a top, middle, and bottom. The monk records the time he is on each stair tread. He stays at the top, and the next day, at 8:am Tuesday, the monk starts down the staircase. As he did the day before, the monk records the time when he occupies each stair tread. Question  At the same time stamp on the monk’s Timex digital watch, will the up path and the down path match on any one of the stair treds? 

[#42]
Quoted: Nah, good engineers excel at cutting through bullshit. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: i'd say engineering is likely. he cant take yes for an answer because with the unknowns he cant calculate the exact place and time. Nah, good engineers excel at cutting through bullshit. Physicist vs Engineer 

[#43]
Quoted: yes for him to a chart path, which he never did. or even really acknowledged so I think the bet was not accepted. View Quote You should be ashamed of yourself. I would be if my word was worth no more than that. There should an asterisk beside your name that lets everyone know that your word is worth nothing more than any other scam that has a paragraph of fine print at the bottom of it. 

[#44]
Quoted: Its not a math problem to be proved with some fancy calculus equations. Its a simple X Y chart showing time and distance. That is all that is needed. It has been posted over and over. And your refusal to accept the unrefuted answer doesn't change that. View Quote But have yooouuuu posted it? Lol copy and paste it so he will have to pay up. Of course then he will just find another out. First it was" show the math" now its "chart a path". The guys word is worth nothing 

[#45]
Quoted: No I am willing to send the mag, 100 % willing. the question is did you fulfil your end, I said post the math, you never did. I will leave that up to a mod or staff. @DKProf @aimless View Quote The math is simple. The integral of one continuous function bounded between two coordinates (in velocity and time) is always equal to the negative of another continuous function bounded between the same coordinates with opposite slope of the first function at at least one position. This is easily demonstrated graphically in position as posted above. 

[#46]
Quoted: Now if you are the typical ARFcom millionaire you probably have an actual mountain you can use. Or you own so much property that you can't physically walk that far. In this case, take your longest rope and stretch it out to its full length and that becomes the path. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Now if you are the typical ARFcom millionaire you probably have an actual mountain you can use. Or you own so much property that you can't physically walk that far. In this case, take your longest rope and stretch it out to its full length and that becomes the path. Well I only have 5 acres and its all wooded so it would never work. But I have thouoght about doing a on mile walk with a path tracking ap. Quoted: Let's say it takes 5 minutes (I have no idea). Now start at the first corner again, we'll call it the bottom of the mountain, and start walking the same loop. You are now the day 1 monk going up the mountain. At some point along the path, say at 3 minutes, put a marker on the ground and finish your hike to the top of the mountain, the second corner of the driveway. So, you are now at the top of the mountain, the second corner of your driveway. Set your clock to zero and hit start on your timer. Adjust your walking speed and rest time so you get to the marker you left on the way up in 3 minutes. At the 3 minute mark, you have arrived at the same point at the same time while walking in both directions on the path. You can adjust the length of times, how long the path is, how fast you walk however you want but you will always pass the marker on the path that you left on the way up. If you get to the marker in less than the 3 minutes, you walked to fast. In more than 3, you walked too slow. The part in red is where you are changing it. Intentionally speeding up or down is not what the riddle says. Walking slower or faster the second time just to make it work out is not near the same as saying you can walk faster or slower or even take breaks and you will reach the same spot at the same time. 

[#47]
Quoted: But have yooouuuu posted it? Lol copy and paste it so he will have to pay up. Of course then he will just find another out. First it was" show the math" now its "chart a path". The guys word is worth nothing View Quote The bet was for him to post the math proving it, he did not. I will admit I cant prove it wrong. But he did not post the math proving it right, I see it as a wash. I am willing 100% to pay it, in a heart beat if any mod or staff feel he accepted the bet and did his end. For a bet to be valid to me it has to be accepted. also if I bet you that you could not jump 20 feet high with nothing but your leg power, it does not mean I have to do it to win. 

[#48]
Quoted: Well I only have 5 acres and its all wooded so it would never work. But I have thouoght about doing a on mile walk with a path tracking ap. The part in red is where you are changing it. Intentionally speeding up or down is not what the riddle says. Walking slower or faster the second time just to make it work out is not near the same as saying you can walk faster or slower or even take breaks and you will reach the same spot at the same time. View Quote The speed is irrelevant. Whether the speed changes or is constant, is irrelevant. The only two pertinent variables are that the routes are the same (albeit in reverse), and the starting time is the same. It is mathematically guaranteed the two paths cross somewhere  putting the monk at the same place at the same time. 

[#49]
Quoted: Well I only have 5 acres and its all wooded so it would never work. But I have thouoght about doing a on mile walk with a path tracking ap. The part in red is where you are changing it. Intentionally speeding up or down is not what the riddle says. Walking slower or faster the second time just to make it work out is not near the same as saying you can walk faster or slower or even take breaks and you will reach the same spot at the same time. View Quote LOL. Both trips took the same average speed. 

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 19962023 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.