Sat 17 Jan, 2004 12:03 pm - Frank
Sure I saw his irony. How come you expect me to see irony but you don't see mine?
"Now with your help we all know what we knew before". Being patronising isn't... (view)
Sat 17 Jan, 2004 10:26 am - Using a slight variation on the 'Seal-Frank' method (the S-K method) it is quite easy to have four rows each with five trees using no more and no less than ten trees (It could be done... (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 06:20 pm - That sounds like one row of ten to me, with some fast and shifty footwork thrown in. Somewhat similar to saying that triangles can have four sides because you have the option of calling the... (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 01:36 pm - Seal
You say you can do six rows of five trees using ten trees. I'd be very interested in seeing that. I am satisfied that fifteen would be required and both of us can't be right. If I... (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 01:03 pm - Not only the variation of 'length against degrees', there is always the question of how accurate a figure is being used for the putative circumference of the earth in the first place.... (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 12:23 pm - I'm more sure than ever that there is some mistake.
I calculate that, given the wording of the question and that any arrangement of lines can be chosen, the fewest trees you would need to... (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 11:07 am - You are unquestionably right about the digging, Seal, but I was using imaginary trees, so I had my imaginary gardener do the digging. I still couldn't solve it for trees (view)
Fri 16 Jan, 2004 09:43 am - I reckon Adrian is right. Are you absolutely sure you mean four rows with five trees in each row?
It can be done with coins though (view)
