Impossible Problem?

---

On October 15 2009 15:26 Caller wrote:
pretty easy

start from the center and draw lines squiggly through all the middle segments
then draw parabolic curves touching each segment at one sole point (i.e. tangent)

---

---

On October 15 2009 15:28 KurtistheTurtle wrote:

i thought of this too. my sister is going crazy trying to solve this and she said that doesnt count, it actually has to go through

---

---

On October 15 2009 15:30 Ryan307 wrote:


I think I got it~

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:14 Divinek wrote:
Yeah that's a graph theory problem. Yeah that's not doable.

Just look at this basic example

Take the top left square, there are 5 edges that you must cross. The only way to do this without crossing an edge twice is to start from INSIDE the square. So that's doable, but now you must start from outside the upper right square, and cross all the edges without crossing one twice. You can't do it.

Also i feel bad for your sister because this only takes a minute tops of reasoning it out instead of trying random paths.

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:18 Lemonwalrus wrote:
@Divinek: If it is a well known problem for which a new type of problem solving was developed to solve it...then it isn't just 'a minute tops of reasoning it out' that most people take to solve it.

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:23 EtherealDeath wrote:



That is not true. Leave the top left square, but change the top right square so that it has only 2 interior edges, while not changing the rest of the squares (somehow), and the problem is now solveable. It's not that the top left square has 5 edges that is the problem, because then you have exactly two edges of odd degree (note that there are 11 possible edge destinations from each corner edge that faces the outside white space). Then, since the top right also has two edges of odd degree, you end up with 4 total edges of odd degree, which at THAT point makes the problem impossible.

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:24 Divinek wrote:


seems pretty obvious that there cant be a solution just from what i said. You cant even get past that part so there's no part even fiddling with the rest.

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:26 Lemonwalrus wrote:

I'm just saying implying someone is stupid for not immediately realizing the solution to a problem that is so troublesome it lead to the development of a new type of problem solving is kinda lame.

---

---

On October 15 2009 16:24 Divinek wrote:


seems pretty obvious that there cant be a solution just from what i said. You cant even get past that part so there's no part even fiddling with the rest.




That's what i said v_v. If you use them in combination like that. Though the way that paragraph started it did mean i was talking about only the one thing isolated.

---