On Planting Trees
If you wish to plant some trees so that each is equal distant from every other tree what is the largest number you can plant.
By the way, Red Maple is one of the best tree to plant.
By the way, Red Maple is one of the best tree to plant.
Labels: bcreative, out-of-the-box
posted by Rajesh Lal at
9:34 AM
55 Comments:
Seems too easy, but I'm gonna go with 3.
Sounds limitless to me. So I don't know what I'm missing...
depends on how much empty space you have i guess
hwdiv, how would you do it with 4?
3... of course!
Tree = big
ok ill say tod is correct cause u would plat the 3 trees in a triangle meaning all trees were equal distance apart
only way u could plant a 4th one was if there was a big hill in the middle of the 3 so u could make a 3D arrangemet of a triangular pyrimid
I like the 4 on a hill answer (or a ravine I guess) Way to think outside the box slayer.
Yeah, no kidding.
Bravo, Slayer.
couldn't u do that with a square a pentagon, hexagon so on and so forth -_____-
i agree with slayer on the hill thing, 4 seems the most possible for all to be equidistant from one another. The reason you can't do it with a square or hgher pointed polygon is this: lets name the points of a square 1,2,3,4(clockwise from top left). Now although points 1 and 2 have a distance of X, as do 2-3, and 3-4, points 1-3 have a distance between them greater than that, same with a pentagon, hex, etc.
no because, take a square for example, the two corners opposite each other are farther away from their adjacent corners. A triangle is the only shape that works.
nah, its deffo 3.
ohh i see ok thanks
what if they are planted next to each other so they are all touching. you could have 5 like that.
No because the 5th one wouldn't be the same distance from the first 1
ok i think 5 is correct, 4 trees create a box and 1 tree in the center.
I also go with 3 although Slayer's 4 would fall under streching the box but definately no more than 4 but it would have to be in the pyrimid fasion all sided being equil.
I would say, if your using one of those trees with a very large underground root system, that it would be limitless.
The largest known single organism on the planet is what appears to be a grove of trees in, Africa I believe?
Anyway, the entire grove is, in reality, a single organism. A single tree that is connected to every other tree via the shared roots.
So, they are all just as close to one tree as they are another, because they are the same tree.
~Cenyu
Here is a Wikipedia link to the info I suggested above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_organism
Scroll down and start reading where it mentions Aspen trees.
~Cenyu
cenyu has got a point exept that it is a single organism so it is one tree, ur answer is now 1, with the roots touching u have to remember that u r planting the trees so they wont have the root system in place for quite a few yrs thus cancling out ur theory, also id like to say good thinking gbusman for extending onto my answer with the raviene, any one got any ideas on the last clue though tyhats the one thing i can figure out.
3 or 4 if piramid like formation used (i.e. on the top of a hill)
I tend to agree with Cenyu, but I think that the California Redwoods are more correct. Their root systems interlock just under the ground over a large area.
Exactly how widespread a particlular tree's roots extend I don't know, but the distance between one tree and the next would be technically zero.
All of you ppl must be rich ppl with too much spare time on your hands!!!!! I say y don't you all get a life!
3 In a triangle because if you arrange 4 of them in a piramid the trees would not be equal distant on the same plane
Three in a tree triangle.
This post has been removed by the author.
The question was "what is the largest number of trees you could plant" - wouldn't that be limitless? Perhaps the least amount would be 3
I would have to say it says it has to be equal distant from each other, but it doesn't say from which point on the tree t has to be equal distant, and if you use red maple, it is a 50 foot tall tree and the tip of its longest branch to the tip of its other longest branch on its other side is about 50 feet so yeah
the least would be 2
3, as a triangle, ofcourse
Dimension + 1, no?
heh, "treeangle"
In 2 dimentional space, a vetices of an equilateral triangle represent the largest number of points that are equidistant from every other point.
In 3 dimentions it is the 4 verticies of a tetrahedron that are equidistant from every other point.
infinite, if you plant them at the same place.
if you want to plant 4 equidistant from each other, instead of a hill or ravine, you could just put them at specific points around the globe, in a tetrahedron if I'm not mistaken.
yep, absolutely 3 on the same plane and 4 in a tetrahedron (different locations around the world)
The answer is simple if you read the question carefully. The answer is that you cannot plant numbers, they are abstract.
for those of you who say 3 is the most on one plane you are in correct you can have a square with each side being say 2 meters and has a diagonal of 2 meters (see below) also if a hill is involved why not go the whole nine yards creating multiple dimensions
clearly this is a rectangle however create this diagram with more preportional images and find the same answer
T--T
I\/I
I/\I
T--T
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that a square with all sides being 2 meters could possibly have diagonals being 2 meters as well. Using basic trig, we can find diagonal (d) for a square with sides (s) being 2 meters to be :
d=s/sin(45)
d=2.83
Therefor, if the trees are configured in this arrangement:
1--2
|\/|
|/\|
3--4
trees 2 and 3 are 1.41 times further away than trees 1 and 2.
I think that the answer is either 3 for a planar environment or 4 if perfect conditions allow a tetrahedron. Or maybe 2 if you're planting them on a really skinny but long island.
i would agree on the number 4. stop giving suggestions of squares or weird rectangle people. only a perfectly equilateral triangle would have equidistant points. 3-dimensionally, 4 trees in a tetrahedron formation would do fine, so mathematically its definitly 4.
There is no tree..
THE ANSWER IS 6
You people are mostly thinking 3D.
Slayers idea of the pyramid was good, but still a little 2D. if you had a platform (and some REALLY small trees) above the first 3, the exact same distance up as they are from tree to tree on the same level.
T t T
T t T
Recognizing "T" as the trees closer and "t" as the trees further away (in a triangle) its simple... thus the answer is 6
Unless you can find some way of making a perfectly equal square or something like that...
retardedly smart, im thinking more retarded than smart.
T1 t1 T2
T3 t2 T4 will not work. heres why.
put simply, the capital Ts infront of you already form a square. what makes you think that 4 points of a square are equidistant from each other diagonally? Its basic trigo.
so much about us thinking too 3d.
jonathan, who agreed its 4 in a tetrahedron shape mathematically.
If you consider string theory.. then there "could" be 1 tree planted in every universal deminsion. And since they are all on top of each other, then all the single tree's are equal disstance (in space-time) apart.. lmfao
2... one at the north pole & one at the south pole!
The answer is 5 cuz 4 makes a box with 1 in the centre so they are all equal. cenyu is wrong cuz if you plant the trees, they can't all be connected when you plant them
the trick is that if u look closer, u would see that the question is really trying to work you minds but if you look closely you can see that they said..... what is the (largest number) u can plant see but this is only what i think so send in everything
k the answer depends on what area you are limited to.. given the entire earth the answer is 4- allow me to explain myself.. if the trees were to be displayed as the corners of a pyramid with a triangular base (four corners of the earth) this would make all distances from the trees equal.. any amount higher would result in one or more of the trees to be longer in length from another...if we are limited to a specified flat area the answer is 3... whoever said 5 trees touching is wrong because if counting clockwise from the top tree 1 would be closer to tree 2 and 5 and farther from 3 and 4
i have no idea why, but plenty of idiots are coming back and saying 5 with 1 tree inside a box of trees etc. COME ON! SINCE WHEN 4 POINTS MAKE A CUBE! AT LEAST READ BEFORE POSTING AND QUOTE SOMEONE TO MAKE YOURSELF LESS STUPID!
for the last time, the answer is 4. look for any answer mentioning equilateral triangle based pyramid or tetrahedron.
squares/any 3d polygon with squares cannot work, either your trigo sucks or pythygoras is an idiot.
jonathan, wonders how many people failed elementary school maths.
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX LIKE THE HINT SAID! IT'S ONLY IN THE SHAPE OF A TRIANGLE THAT 3 TREES WILL BE EQUAL DISTANCES APART. U CAN'T ADD A FOURTH TREE FOR A SQUARE CAUSE GOING CLOCKWISE FROM TOP LEFT CORNER BEING A, THEN TOP RIGHT B, THEN BOTTOM RIGHT C, AND BOTTOM LEFT D, THEN POINT A AND C WOULD BE FURTHER APART THAN A TO B OR A TO D.
Let's try something a little outside the box.
If you are measuring from the center of the tree, I agree with 4.
If you concider that trees are 3 dimensional objects, the distance between two trees that are overlapping would be zero. In this case the answer would be - as many trees as you can plant with each overlapping all the others.
If we have a plane with 3 trees in the shape of a triangle, and one falls over and nobody is around to hear it, does it still make a noise?
ANSWER = 4
-----------------------
DETAILS
-----------------------
Three trees forming a triangle and a tree on a hill at the center. 3 tree in 2 d and one in the third dimension.
GOT RIGHT
-----------------------
mind slayer, Batty, Sir, Ben ,"im right so look at my answer", mitchs,
I reckon it is 5, but before u dismiss me for a complete retard hear me out.
you plant them in a diamond shape on hilly ground so it a tetrahedron, but this is a giant planet and they are a million kilometers away and you plant one in the center 3.3 seconds afterwards they are equidistant if you consider time as a dimension and use plank units to remove dimensionality from units
you know reviewing that it is total bs but I'll post anyway
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home