How many cuts do you need to cut something in zero pieces?
-
-1. 3 cuts = 4 peices 2 cuts = 3 pieces 1 cut = 2 pieces 0 cuts = 1 piece -1 cuts = 0 pieces [edit] That joke has been tried . Pants. How about i/j no reasoning, but hyperspace probably works somehow.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
-1. 3 cuts = 4 peices 2 cuts = 3 pieces 1 cut = 2 pieces 0 cuts = 1 piece -1 cuts = 0 pieces [edit] That joke has been tried . Pants. How about i/j no reasoning, but hyperspace probably works somehow.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
-
-1. 3 cuts = 4 peices 2 cuts = 3 pieces 1 cut = 2 pieces 0 cuts = 1 piece -1 cuts = 0 pieces [edit] That joke has been tried . Pants. How about i/j no reasoning, but hyperspace probably works somehow.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
I can get 4 pieces with 2 cuts, and 7 pieces with 3 cuts Are you still sure it's linear like that? How do you know you don't get half a piece with -1 cuts?
Depends how you place the cut doesn't it. The way I'm cutting (right across the centre) -1 will work :-). I like your original question BTW, I guess I like absurdist reasoning. Quasi Philosophical Answers (with a matrix style answer): You could cut it using n/2 cuts, where n is the number of molecules in the paper. Break it down into molecules, you don't have any paper anymore so you have zero pieces of paper (but lots of molecules). Another answer would be to re-define a "peice of paper cut by Harold Aptroot" as something else and no longer a piece of paper, say a "Sunderharold": 1 cut Burn the paper: it's no longer paper (again): Zero cuts. First you have to realise there is no paper: Zero Cuts Quasi Mathematical Answers (one in the style of Douglas Adams): Another answer is to define Zero = 1: zero cuts, (or Zero=2 min 1 Cut), or we could start with a Zero-indexed system. How about forming a mobius strip, it's two dimensional and can't therefore can't possibly exist in the 3d space (ignoring time) in front of us. We therefore have zero pieces of paper . Oh and magnets are just magic :-) I must stop avoiding work...........
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^] -
Thats hardly explaining ANY logic.
See if you can crack this: fb29a481781fe9b3fb8de57cda45fbef
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."