Charles Morrice

Brit, living in Hamburg, likes photography, mucking around with bikes, and math puzzles.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@AdamRutherford I’m in the middle of this book (have enjoyed all of Faulks others) and found myself wondering what you would say! Pleased to find in Google that you did an interview with the author at the Haye book festival. Are there any transcripts available of this or your thoughts?

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@jamestanton If the numbers are supposed to represent the lengths of the sides, then it would be better if the dots were placed on segments of equal length, rather than starting at the ends of the lines. That would also deal with the doubling up at the corners.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@cuantum123 @H0H0v I thing you‘re right. Correct answer is 12. 13 would be right if there were a + between the 1 and the fraction, but there isn’t, so it’s a 1 * the fraction. (You could skip the step with 25/25 though!)

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@GeometryPuzzles The two red triangles have equal area (as each component triangle has shared base and same height). Therefore shaded area is 8*8/2 = 64

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@ronawang Smash or pass so

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@jane_hindmarch That looks interesting!

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@mrburkemath @Math_World_ Neat

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@Jigsy1973 @kyledevans High altitude, thin air, less buoyancy -> shorter jumps?

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@JuhaniHalkomaki Really nice. Reminds me a bit of this guy … but he‘s not nearly as civilized. Just springs. https://t.co/qTU7zbysKk

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@damlasuk_ @KH2020H0 So what does the r=7 Solution correspond to?

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@mathssolutionz Nice puzzle. Is there a way without algebra I wonder? I really enjoyed these Japanese puzzles which seem similar.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@MathsJenious @mathssolutionz It does look as if they are about the same. If you think that’s enough …. I guess you could measure them and call that a proof. But then you may as well measure the dimensions of the shaded are directly.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@Seyed_ARA @mathssolutionz How about x = 4, y = 1.5 also works. Then shaded area = 0. But I guess then the picture would be different.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@Harbe_10 @mathssolutionz But how do you know the horizontal line is halfway?

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@MathsJenious @mathssolutionz But must dimensions of right bottom be whole numbers. Wouldn’t 1.2 wide x 5 high also be 6, and many more pairs?

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@DorcasFellows90 @Mirangu1 The best by far

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@HHMusicOfficial @SmoothJohnny5 It took them years to get there as well. Euler had done all his stuff on primes, and the Italians had found solutions to cubic equations (positive roots only of course) b4 mathematicians even acknowledged that negative numbers exist, let alone figured out how to multiply them.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@HHMusicOfficial @SmoothJohnny5 I dug this out from my old textbook. The journey from -ve numbers in addition, then in multiplication, then fractions, then irrationals on to imaginary and complex numbers is so exciting, and always about ‚completeness‘. Every step along the way a struggle with huge prizes.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@HHMusicOfficial @SmoothJohnny5 This is a great discussion. Fundamentally you have cracked it, Hannah, in that minus*minus=plus is a direct consequence of wanting to preserve the same useful rules that apply to multiplying positive numbers when extending this to negative ones, in particular a*(b+c)=ab+ac.

[Charles Morrice @Charly_Mo]

@HHMusicOfficial @SmoothJohnny5 The ‚ambiguity‘ is I think about some steps along the way which, in a rigorous proof, should be established formally. For example a-b =a+(-b), and -x = -1*x (first step for multiplying by -1). But the proofs are trivial and the equivalences more or less a convenient notation.