How can one prove this isn't possible?

File: 1481642623888.jpg (259KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 937x960px

>tfw not a brainlet

File: 1481639490937.jpg (149KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 937x960px

>>8536332
Saw this on /b/. Posting the simplest answer.

>>8536339
What if the points are infinitely small?
>>8536343
I got this from /b/ also. I know it isn't possible, but how can you use math to prove it? If you think you found a solution at least number your lines.

>>8536347
I'm explaining to the dumbasses on /b/ that drawing a line over another line isn't drawing another line, since it's the same line.

>>8536347
>what if the points are infinitely small

then I just need infinitely longer line segments

File: dumbass.jpg (150KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 937x960px

>>8536343

>>8536352
/thread/

>>8536351
Technically, you're drawing line segments, not lines, which are infinite

>>8536348
This is a solution.

>>8536356
Where did the line connecting (1,1) and (2,1) come from?

>>8536348
With two vertices of odd degree, you can't end up where you started w/o traversing one edge twice.

>>8536359
sorry that's meant to be (1,1) and (1,2)

>>8536358
Would you agree that drawing a line and then extending said line is still 1 line?

>>8536359
No idea what you are talking about when you say (1,1) and (2,1).

>>8536359
Wait actually >>8536348 isn't a solution because of >>8536360

>>8536362

What do you mean, where did it come from?

>>8536356
Your numbering is wrong, but these lines can in fact be drawn according to the rules if you start at a vertex of odd degree.

>>8536365
I don't think the line has been extended. It was just one line.

and (1,1) and (1,2) are x,y coordinates if you will

>>8536368
Doesn't matter the way I numbered them, there's 5 lines.

>>8536369
No I extended it. I went from top left to top right then down to bottom right then to bottom left, up one dot, all the way to the right, draw back over that line to the left and then extend that line I had previously drawn to end back where I started.

>>8536373
If drawing over the same line was allowed this exercise would be too easy. Besides, I'd consider that to be two lines drawn, one from (1,3) to (1,2) and another from (1,2) to (1,1). You drew them in seperate instances. You'd be better off (assuming you can draw over the same line, which I don't think you should be able to do) going from (1,3) to (1,1) then back to (1,2) then right to (4,2).

>>8536387
>was allowed
No where does it say it's not allowed. You'd be right if it was based off the assumption that I was drawing two separate lines but in the end it is just one line as I am merely extending said line.

OP here. You can't backtrack over your own lines. I don't care if it's in the rules or not, this isn't fucking /b/ the goal of this thread is not to cleverly avoid breaking the rules. The goal of this thread is to prove this isn't possible.
>>8536360
This person is actually attempting to do what I asked. Now how can we show that this configuration of dots will ALWAYS result in two vertices of odd degree?

>>8536390
You're right but I think the person who made this meant to write that it's not allowed. And I think the natural assumption is that you can't extend lines and consider them to still be the same line. Otherwise, you could argue that each line you draw, even if they change direction, are the same line, in which case you've basically solved it in one line. Or you could argue that lines are made of infinitely many infinitesimal points, in which case you could solve it using zero lines.

A line in this case is the time from when you put the pencil on the paper and start drawing a straight line segment, to the time when you have to stop to change direction.

>tfw you solved it and are too smart to share it with brainlets

>>8536332
write a program to brute force all the possible paths (there are 12*11*10*9*8 = 95,040 of them so this is easy)

>>8536470
How do you know those are all the possible paths?

File: 1468248877174.png (325KB, 584x433px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 584x433px

>>8536401
>iktf

for big enough dots and with enough paper, you can solve this with 4 straight lines

>>8537040
with a big enough pencil, you can solve this with one straight line

>>8537040
>>8537043
If you have scrissors you can do a single straight cut that will take all the dots on the paper

>>8536339
Clever. Although this really only works in projective space.

>>8536332
Because you have to end up where you started I don't believe its possible unless the points are actually small circles rather than points in which case there is near infinite solutions that look like >>8536339

>>8537040
>not understanding the dots are points

How's calc I going, brainlet

File: solution.png (635KB, 1127x960px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1127x960px

>brainlets will say its fake

File: 20161213_170751.jpg (281KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 937x960px

Isn't this the simplest solution? Or am I reading wrong.

>>8537248
You have to end where you started

>>8537251
It doesn't say that anywhere though, it just says to connect the dots.

>>8537264
This is some pretty tasty bait.

File: revelation.png (941KB, 1322x940px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 1322x940px

>>8536339
>>8536332
>>8536348
Got it <3

>>8537359
cool

>>8536343
>>8536348
>>8536356
>end up where you started

File: 1481642623888.jpg (166KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 937x960px

>>8536332
get rekt son

>>8537855
Oh shit. Nice!

>>8537868
you can put it upside down and there is another solution

File: 1481642623888Sol.jpg (261KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 937x960px

>>8536332
You never said I couldn't cross the lines.

File: 1481642623888Sol2.jpg (258KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 937x960px

>>8538237
Basically the same thing but this time with no crossing lines.

>>8538237
this is against the spirit of the problem, imo

it is an unspoken assumption in math the dots and lines do not have finite finite thickness

>>8538256
I did exactly what was asked of me by the image.

>>8538258
no you didn't because you didn't draw the lines with a pencil :^)

>>8537855
Holy shit this is actually a solution

>>8536332
counter example

>>8537855
winner

>>8538237
not a solution. we are assuming dots are infinitely small so you must go thru the CENTER of each dot

>>8538464
>we

I have connected the dots. Nowhere in the text is it stated that I must treat each dot as a point.

>>8536470
this is only true, if you're only allowed to turn at the points.

>>8536332
It's on a whiteboard dumbfucks. A pencil on a whiteboard.... Heyzues

>>8537855
thats correct. it should also be solvablr in less lines, if you drop the assumption of euklydian geometry.

>>8538566
I see no problem with rubbing graphite on a while lacquer surface.

File: 2.jpg (283KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 937x960px

>>8538649
there, did it in 2.

>>8537264
How are you reading 4chan if you are blind?

>>8538467
Lol dude, don't get so triggered. Just accept the fact that you solved a problem nobody cares about.

>hurr look guys, I solved a different problem, look how smart I am

>>8539593
>end up where you started

>>8539596
?

>>8539597
you have to end up where you started

si deve finire dove si è partiti

Tienes que terminar donde empezaste

вы дoлжны в кoнeчнoм итoгe, гдe вы нaчaли

Vous devez finir là où vous avez commencé

>>8539596
Imagine all those points are in a flat plane like say a piece of paper. And lets say that the top left point is at the top left edge of the paper and the bottom right point is at the bottom right edge of the paper.

Then fold the paper, curving it, so that the top left point touches the bottom right point.

Now the solution is correct, just in a different space ;^)

>>8539607
Show me where it says that.

>>8539615
Read the fucking OP ya dingus

>>8539633
I don't care about the OP.

>>8539636
>posts in thread
>does not care about what the thread is about

This is the single most autistic defense I've ever heard.

>Hey, why are you acting retarded?
>I'm not retarded!
>But look at the conversation we are having. What you said makes no sense in this context
>OH I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONVERSATION HAPPENING LOL
>Then why did you join the conversation?
>Uhgghh ughghghghg

>>8537855
y= 0
y = -x + 2
y = x-1
y = -.5 + 2.5
y = .5x + 1

If anyone wants to test. Nice job

File: ez.jpg (152KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 937x960px

>>8536332
ez

File: ez_fixed.jpg (161KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 937x960px

>>8539702
fixed

>>8539640
Autismo

>he didnt fold the paper so he didnt have to lift his pencil

Is this something to do with nodes?

>>8538805
>different problem

Dot != point no matter how much you sperg out over it.

>>8537855
>straight lines

File: Capture.png (78KB, 554x560px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 554x560px

Yall forgetting something

File: Straight lines.png (74KB, 630x546px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 630x546px

>>8539887
>>8539924

>>8537855
>>8539932
nice

File: 1481399436794.jpg (58KB, 514x524px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 514x524px

>>8539932
wowie

nice

>>8538725
KEK!

What's possible with SIX lines?

>>8539932
I meant that there's a dot in the sentence :^)

File: q.jpg (217KB, 6000x1356px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 6000x1356px

>>8537855
>>8539932
>not doing it in 4 strokes

>>8536357
>replying to yourself