Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

stupid puzzle

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Joe keane

unread,
May 7, 2012, 4:42:08 PM5/7/12
to
When i get dressed, i'm like:

undershirt, underwear, socks, pants, overshirt, shoes

How many ways will work fine to do this?

Don Del Grande

unread,
May 7, 2012, 9:08:23 PM5/7/12
to
SPOILER SPACE
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

Assuming the only dependencies are socks before shoes, undershirt
before overshirt, and underwear before pants, there are a total of 6!
ways to order the items, but they can be divided equally into "shoes
before socks" (bad) and "socks before shoes" (good); similarly, the
360 good combinations include 180 "overshirt before undershirt" (bad)
and 180 "undershirt before overshirt" (good); these 180 have 90 "pants
before underwear" (bad) and "underwear before pants" (good).

The solution is 90.

-- Don

Mark Brader

unread,
May 7, 2012, 11:16:58 PM5/7/12
to
Joe Keane:
>> When i get dressed, i'm like:
>> undershirt, underwear, socks, pants, overshirt, shoes

>> How many ways will work fine to do this?

Don Del Grande:
In other words, 6!/2^3.

But, by similar reasoning, the actual answer is 8!/2^4, or 2,520.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Men! Give them enough rope and they'll dig
m...@vex.net | their own grave." -- EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Steve Barker

unread,
May 8, 2012, 12:11:24 AM5/8/12
to
all ways will work. Except in some situations you have to leave the
undergarments at home.

IE: if you put the pants on first, then you skip the underwear. etc...

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

Ed Murphy

unread,
May 8, 2012, 11:15:05 AM5/8/12
to
Huh? Oh, because gurer ner gjb fbpxf naq gjb fubrf.

John Grint

unread,
May 8, 2012, 12:00:47 PM5/8/12
to
On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 02:08:23 UTC+1, Don Del Grande wrote:
> Joe keane wrote:
>
> >When i get dressed, i'm like:
> >
> >undershirt, underwear, socks, pants, overshirt, shoes
> >
> >How many ways will work fine to do this?
>

>
> Assuming the only dependencies are socks before shoes, undershirt
> before overshirt, and underwear before pants, there are a total of 6!
> ways to order the items, but they can be divided equally into "shoes
> before socks" (bad) and "socks before shoes" (good); similarly, the
> 360 good combinations include 180 "overshirt before undershirt" (bad)
> and 180 "undershirt before overshirt" (good); these 180 have 90 "pants
> before underwear" (bad) and "underwear before pants" (good).
>
> The solution is 90.
>
> -- Don

In my experience it is next to impossible to put your trousers (pants) on if you already have your shoes on. On the other hand, it is clearly possible to put one trouser leg on, then the corresponding shoe, and then the other trouser leg followed by the second shoe.

---------
John Grint
Sevenoaks, UK

Mark Brader

unread,
May 8, 2012, 12:22:37 PM5/8/12
to
John Grint:
> In my experience it is next to impossible to put your trousers (pants)
> on if you already have your shoes on.

I don't make a habit of doing it, but I have occasionally (in a doctor's
office, say). I guess it would depend the relative size of different
body parts and perhaps on the style of pants.

Under John's interpretation, the 8!/2^4 that I previously calculated is
reduced by a factor of 3 to a final answer of 840.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Courtesy, hell. We're programmers not humans."
m...@vex.net | -- S. M. Ryan

m II

unread,
May 14, 2012, 1:31:04 AM5/14/12
to
Perms and coms are way over most of their heads here.

---------
"Joe keane" wrote in message news:jo9c30$36c$1...@reader1.panix.com...
0 new messages