Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:45 am
I'll post a diagram of the answer once enough people get it wrong.
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
axbaby
Posts: 3424 Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 8:00 am
Post
by axbaby » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:15 am
40?
Last edited by
axbaby on Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
[color=#FF0000][WYD][/color]
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:25 am
You're all wrong so far.
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
axbaby
Posts: 3424 Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 8:00 am
Post
by axbaby » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:31 am
44
[color=#FF0000][WYD][/color]
GONNAFISTYA
Posts: 13369 Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Post
by GONNAFISTYA » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:36 am
In terms of solid, unbroken and definable triangles that don't cross any lines, there are only eight.
If triangles whose lines can cross other lines, there are many more.
But the question was how many triangles...not how many perceived triangles.
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:41 am
GONNAFISTYA wrote: In terms of solid, unbroken and definable triangles that don't cross any lines, there are only eight.
If triangles whose lines can cross other lines, there are many more.
But the question was how many triangles...not how many perceived triangles.
So what you're trying to say is the answer is 'bout tree fiddy?
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
GONNAFISTYA
Posts: 13369 Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Post
by GONNAFISTYA » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:46 am
Naw don't go offerin the soul no tree fiddy, woman.
You coulda a least started a buck o' five or sumthin.
GONNAFISTYA
Posts: 13369 Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:20 pm
Post
by GONNAFISTYA » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:53 am
If that test is really fuckin anal I guess you could also include the triangles in the words "MANY TRIANGLES"
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:55 am
No, that's not included.
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
Ryoki
Posts: 13460 Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 7:00 am
Post
by Ryoki » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:28 am
I only see eight too, but i kinda suck at this sort of thing.
[size=85][color=#0080BF]io chiamo pinguini![/color][/size]
o'dium
Posts: 11712 Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 8:00 am
Post
by o'dium » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:53 am
Using a complex display featuring LEDs, smoke, mirrors and a baby seal (READ: Google), I have concluded that it is indeed 64.
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:36 pm
o'dium wrote: Using a complex display featuring LEDs, smoke, mirrors and a baby seal (READ: Google), I have concluded that it is indeed 64.
At least you had the balls to admit you cheated. No way Plan B or Spazda actually figured it out.
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
MKJ
Posts: 32582 Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:00 am
Post
by MKJ » Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:44 pm
well the procedure was obvious.
i can guess a lot of people get it wrong simply because they miss one or two tho.
still, im willing to believe the majority of that 92.6% were way off (read: said less than 10).
Plan B
Posts: 3599 Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2001 8:00 am
Post
by Plan B » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:01 pm
LawL wrote: At least you had the balls to admit you cheated. No way Plan B or Spazda actually figured it out.
Yeah okay, "cheating"
I just knew the answer because this shit is old.
Cheating as in being able to remember something, then.
And then you saying "you're all wrong so far" because your little trap got ruined
LawL
Posts: 18358 Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:49 am
Post
by LawL » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:11 pm
Actually I said that to get you to expose how you knew.
Because obviously you didn't figure it out for yourself.
Thanks for playing, faggot.
Thick, solid and tight in all the right places.
Plan B
Posts: 3599 Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2001 8:00 am
Post
by Plan B » Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:35 pm
lol, strong thread fail