How hard is it to live as a moron?

How hard is it to live as a moron?

Attached: 1444966271298.jpg (1000x1024, 71K)

Other urls found in this thread:

mindyourdecisions.com/blog/
mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2020/01/06/cube-inside-hemisphere-puzzle/#more-33008
youtube.com/watch?v=XFDM1ip5HdU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Might be wrong but half?

Ask a trumptard. They can tell you all about it.

Niggers

Blue takes up 3 times as much area as red assuming it approaches infinite distance. If you flip the 6 red triangles into a single blue hexagon it's equal area. However, each triangle borders 3 hexagons, not one so 1/3rd.

1.16:3

It seems like it should be simple, which means it's probably not. But I'll go the simple route and say 22.6%.

wording on "continues across a plane" is intentionally vague, if it works how i think it does it would be 1/3 red 2/3 blue

r/b * +X% = Y% red

Ask a libtard, they'd know

3/4

Right on cue, a wild moron appears.

the given pattern cannot cover the plan without holes, hence the question is not well formulated.

31.25%

I say 1:1

OP don't be a cunt. If someone is right, pipe up.

I looked at it with the following steps:
- Break the 8 hexagons into 6 triangles each - you now have 48 blue triangles
- You've also got 14 red triangles
- 48 + 14 = 62.
- 14 / 62 ~ 0.2258
so ~22.6% of the total area is red.

Even if that were true, to could formulate it as if holes were blue.

14 red triangles
42 blue triangles

1/4 of the plane is red

It's very difficult being a moron.
Even worse being a beta incel moron

7 to 23

sorry I meant 48 blue triangles

22.6% is red

Joseph Smith was a wizard.
LDS is good for males who want to be gods and women who want to be subservient, both while pretending to be christian.
If you are good at climbing the social ladder and networking as a male then it will be an easy way of life.
A lot is about social standing and the amount of power you have in the LDS.
It's a cult like all other religions.

Attached: But-Thats-None-Of-My-Business.jpg (600x600, 28K)

ratio: 2 red : 1 blue
area 50/50

blue has 6 sides red has 3. That means the ration is 6:3 or simplified to 2:1.

Given the triangles and hexagons have the same length sides the the area of the triangle would be √(3)/4*x^2.

The hexagon would be √(3)1.5x^2 for volume.

You could calculate volume or just not be retarded and know a hexagon has 6 equilateral triangles in it.

Source: I'm autistic.

Attached: elevendollars.png (800x412, 73K)

It says if it continues across a plane so we can assume that the pattern goes on indefinitely in all directions.

The plane would be 25%red and 75% blue

it is. you can rearange it to a beig hexagon plus areat, hence the given "tile" cannot cover a plane without overlaps or holes. the point is, the question, as it is, has no answer. however, you could ignore holes and calculate the ratio as it is and youre done. but the key point here is to realize that the question in itself is unclear. write that as an answer in a test and get 100% for that part with almost no efford

Idk Solomon you tell me

Attached: 20200108_005640.jpg (203x254, 22K)

if you take a chunk consisting of 1 blue and 3 red you can infinitely repeat that chunk to make the entire plane. So the ratio should be 1 blue for every 3 red.

Everyone! Read the "question" properly.
>What is the ratio of the area that is red to the ratio of the plane?

Yes, the colour ratio is 1 red to 2 blue. But what the fuck is the "ratio of the plane?" It's an intentionally retarded question that regards don't read right and attempt to answer it simply thinking they are smrt when they are really extra retarded.

...

Attached: retards.jpg (1058x516, 100K)

1:1

6 regular triangles have the same area as a regular hexagon, there is a regular triangle attached to each side of the hexagon

OP it's best to consider this as rows of hexagons. In that image the "rows" are sloping diagonally, but you see what I mean. In each "row" we have one blue, then two reds, then one blue, then two reds......etc. So the fundamental "unit" should be 2 reds for every 1 blue. And since 1 red is 1/6 a blue, that means the reds are 1/3 the blue.

So let's say that 1 red is our "unit area", the ratio will be 2/(6+2) = 2/8 = 1/4

1/4 should be the answer

The simplest tessellation I can see is a blue hexagon with 2 red triangles.

That would give a ratio of 1 red to 3 blue.

Attached: Hexagon2.png (586x335, 4K)

Basically the solution I thought. I considered a pattern with a blue hexagon and two adjacent triangles with a common vertex. Repeating that lets you cover an infinite space without holes or overlaps. So, since two triangles have a third of the area of a hexagone, it's 3/4 blue area and 1/4 red area. I'm so pissed off by the engineer-alike approach of calculating the approximate proportions in the figure and say it's ~22,6%, it's so fucking easy to say without any calculation that's precisely 25%, just reasoning a little bit, but no, some people prefere bruteforce over thinking

how long does it take ear cancer from a windmill to kill you?

here
What I was thinking too

That was the shape I first imagined but didn't know how to describe it, so I went with cause google images had it ready.
cause google images

it's like this

Attached: mosaic.jpg (1000x1024, 346K)

With one hexagone and three triangles you can make the entire plane, but with a different pattern. That would change the proportion from 1red/3blue to 1red/2blue

Attached: 1578453162fsdfe827.jpg (561x503, 46K)

well it works just as fine

precisely

get in here nerds

mindyourdecisions.com/blog/

is there a solution for this problem or is it just to visit the page? thanks anyway user

>How hard is it to live as a moron?
10s of millions of niggers do so in America, everyday. It's called living on the dole.

mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2020/01/06/cube-inside-hemisphere-puzzle/#more-33008

I'd recommend checking out his youtube channel. Lots of nice brain candy

It’s 1/3rd

nice

Every red triangle is bordered by 3 blue triangles so yeah, 1 red : 3 blue looks right.

The line is ~3.0624 I think

every new hexagon creates 3 new triangles, as the plane approaches infinity the ratio shifts away from what it is in the picture, and since 3 equilateral triangles form half of a regular hexagon's area, the eventual ratio (as the plane approaches infinity) becomes 1/3.

hold up. there's 1 red for every 3 blue, or 2 red for every 6 blue. looks like 1/3 yeah? nope, its 1/4. red is part of the plane too.

Lol nvm

10 brother!

Nope, the cool thing is that you need no calculation to get the result. It's just geometry

If you look at the blue and place triangles inside, you'll need 6 for every blue. If there are 2 reds for every blue, it'd be 2 red triangles for every 6 blue. 2/6 = 1/3.

It creates two new triangles, not three. Not the best way to solve it imho, but it works

Attached: 15784daasdaddsasd53162827.jpg (610x390, 47K)

ITT people with an extra chromosome take a mock mensa test.
I don't even know what the fuck OP is talking about but I have my cool boi points.
Let me know when math will apply to your real world situations.

1 red to 3 blue.
There are 6 reds in the same length that includes 3 blue

The question isn't the ratio red/blue, but the ratio red/all, that means red/(red+blue). That means 1/(3+1)=1/4, not 1/3

a plane extends in all directions, not just laterally

Attached: this.jpg (1000x1024, 167K)

2/8th of this shape is red. this shape tessellates to infinity.
asked the ratio of red to total area. 2/8. red is 1/3 of blue, but 1/4 of area.

>underrated post

Attached: 1575137302034.gif (220x161, 1.72M)

Replying to myself: the question specifically asks for the ratio across a mathematical plane. That means we're dealing with an infinite space. Does that give us 2 answers? In order to determine the definite ratio, we'd have to pause the patterns continuation at one point in time, meaning we'd have either 1/4 or 1/3 right?

>"Let me know when math will apply to your real world situations"
>said the one who uses an overpowered Turing machine [I know it's a bit of a stretch, I'm just oversimplifying for this retard] to talk on the internet

go study economics you idiot

OOOOOOOHHH! Okay. My brain physically hurts, but I think I may understand. So it's kind of like a trick question?

yeah, since as it expands the difference in interpretation doesn't diminish in significance since more triangles are being created.
as illustrated with the difference in these two

Aha! It's Jews.

Pretty bad lol I'm a moron and I know it. Nothing sucks more knowing you suck

I wouldn't know I am not a moron

Not exactly. You can find a definite and univocal answer finding a group of triangles and hexagones that if infinitely repeated can build up the entire plane without holes or overlaps. At that point you know that the infinite plane is just a repetition of a shape that's 1/4 red and 3/4 blue. So the entire plane is 1/4 red and 3/4 blue. It's like making 3x/1x with x ∞, you'll get ∞/∞, but it makes out anyway 3/1

Wait, I read it again and it's fucking stupid. It doesn't say "red over total", it says "red over the ratio of the total". It's not just a trick question, it doesn't make any sense

What you are asking is awesome. It doesn't apply to OP, but it applies to other stuff!

youtube.com/watch?v=XFDM1ip5HdU

1/4
>Anyone who says otherwise is a brain dead retard

Attached: LINEART_GIF.gif (494x419, 313K)

A-user... I've gone from thinking I'm stupid, be willing to just copy answers to get ((You))s from OP, to giving it an honest shot, being told I was right, and then being told I was wrong, then thinking I'm utterly, hopelessly retarded. This has been a very trying hour for me and I don't know who to believe. Is the question bad? Is it 1 to 3, 3 to 4, 25%, 22.6%? Does it matter that a plain is infinite, meaning that it would be impossible to find the answer?

Tell me: am I still a moron if I gave it my all?

Attached: 20200108_001809.png (492x443, 257K)

What? You're not retarded. The question if taken literally doesn't make any sense, but if interpreted as I did the solution is 1/4. The fact the plane is infinite doesn't mean there's no solution

24:7
Real answer because I'm autistic.

bump

I'm working on the demostration of why these are wrong. On paint it's taking fucking forever. Don't let the thread die

Why?

Attached: 05388387.jpg (344x341, 19K)

Figure it out yourself, its part of the fun

9 : 5

Attached: 03726218.jpg (200x196, 7K)

If you build three triangles every new hexagone you'll eventually be in a situation where the new hexagone doesn't have three unoccupied sides for new triangles. This means you can't build up the whole plane without holes or overlaps. In the image I started from the top left corner and labled every new polygon I added. Going in just one direction I found three holes, and if you go on on all directions (well good luck, it's ridiculously time-consuming) you'l necessary come to a point where yo can't add three triangles anywhere for a new hexagone. This also means you'll come up to a shape with red borders and hexagonal holes, and that of course makes the red/total area ratio rise

If you state something you should prove it, as some of us (the ones actually debating in a somehow productive way) are doing. I can't take the time to try to verify every statement here

I'm a fucking moron, I didn't post the image. Here it is

Attached: 15784dadasddsadassasd53162827.jpg (1133x553, 115K)

2.333/8, or
Aprx' 29%

Attached: DeepFryer_20181211_231652.jpg (719x792, 20K)

Lol this guy counted a red triangle as 1 and a blue hexagon as 6 triangles based on OP's image, then divided each total by two. What he missed was that the OP asked what the "ratio of the area that is red to the ratio of the plane" but failed to see that OP's image will not tessellate, but their PATTERN will. For this guy to be right, the answer of 24:7 describes the shape of the image in OP, but arranged in a way that has spaces between it.

SHIT
sorry
14/(48+14)
aprx' 22.58%

Attached: Screenshot_2019-09-02-09-48-59.png (720x1280, 368K)

I tried to figure out what was the reasoning behind that and I swear I would never have got to that on my own. What a fucking mess btw

Op asked about a pattern. can the ratio in the image op posted become a pattern?

i love this shit

As I said here there's a precise and way easier solution to this. It's not a wrong answer, it's just a dumb one

Infinite red triangles and infinite blue hexagons. They're equal so 50% and 50% across.

I've been super absorbed in this thread, and if "pattern" supersedes OP's image, that answer is objectivity wrong because the image wont tessellate.

Nope, putting this analitically we could say that the ratio is lim[x∞](x/4x) and so 1/4. Learn to solve limits and try again

You mean my answer (two triangles each hexagone) or his/her one (three triangles each hexagone)? For my answer, there are many ways you could tassellate it quite easily. For the other one yeah, technically if you don't rotate anything there's no way. I even tried to alter the position of the triangles respect to the hexagone here and here , but that doesn't work anyway

You're a fucking idiot. There is no limit. Infinity is infinity no matter how much you multiply or divide except via 0.

I dont think I quite under stand you. Break it down as simply as possible. Quick edit I did.

Attached: 15784531628271.jpg (1000x1024, 147K)

It's a trick question. The little section you did could be any assortment of section as it goes on for infinity. The only rational answer is infinity:infinity thus 1:1.

Again, learn to solve limits and try again. You can write this as a limit because you're taking a limited portion of space (one hexagone and two triangles) and repeating that infinite times. That's more or less how limits work (well, that's not 100% true for just real numbers but this is not an analysis 1 lecture, so that's fine). To get the point, think about this: are real numbers more, less or in equal number as the integer ones? Following your reasoning, both go on forever, so they're in equal number. But there's a mathematical demonstration (that neither me and you have the competence to deny) that shows that the real numbers are infinitely more than the integer ones