Math Puzzles

....HIKE!!!!!

... Just as much wood as a woodchuck could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood!

Incorrect.

Also Incorrect.....but only because you didn't answer in Units of Cords.

C'est La Vie.......

Should be 58, if I grasp the pattern. I am not certain because the first increase is 3, then it increases by 6 from then on. I cannot calculate anything but a piecewise function to define it.

Drew

I know the answer, but I'm not going to answer yet - too soon to give it away!

Correct!!! Congratulations, tell him what he's won...........um, what did he win?........really, we don't have anything?...........I hardly think half a good answer is a good enough prize........really?.....Nothing even in the fridge?.......well this is embarrassing....

Um.....Congratulations, you've won half a good answer and a half filled bottle of Cayenne Pepper Sauce....

Roger, another quantum phenomenon: WHICH half of the bottle of Cayenne pepper sauce is full? Does it depend on the position of the bottle? P.S., there's a nice article titled: Who Wrote the Book of Physics; by Adam Frank in the April 2010 issue of Discover magazine.

Hello, Roger. I have an offer for the bonus question. I must ask for special dispensation, as I am unable to convert the final solution here from unknown units into cords, a unit 44" X 48" X 96" stacked loose enough to allow a mouse, but tight enough the fox chasing him must give up:

"Using the formula: (W + I) * C where W = the constant of wood, which is well known to be 61, as agreed in many scientific circles. I = the variable in this equation, and stands for the word "if" from the original problem. As there are three circumstances, with 0 equaling the chance that the woodchuck cannot chuck wood, 1 being the theory that the woodchuck can chuck wood but chooses not to, and 2 standing for the probability that the woodchuck can and will chuck wood, we clearly must choose 2 for use in this equation. C = the constant of Chuck Norris, whose presence in any problem involving the word chuck must there, is well known to equal 1.1 of any known being, therefore the final part of this calculation is 1.1. As is clear, this appears to give the answer of (61 + 2) * 1.1 = (63) * 1.1 = 69.3. However, Chuck Norris' awesome roundhouse kick declares that all decimal points cannot be used in formulae such as this, and so it must be rounded to the final solution of 69 units of wood."

Full credit for this solution goes to a nameless contributor to WikiAnswers:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_wood_could_a_woodchuck_chuck_if_a_woodchuck_could_chuck_wood&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=How_much_wood_a_wood_chuck_could_chuck_if_a_wood_chuck_could_chuck_wood

Regarding the math puzzle... still puzzling it over.

A cord of wood is 48x48x96 inches. A rick is about 1/3 of a cord.

We didn't have wood chucks in Arkansas.

1/3 of a cord is also known as a face cord

Q1- already answered - so not attempting (but multi answers possible) , but the answer given is more simpler and elegant (and faster )

Bonus: maximum 1312 cords, further details here

Since your answer is in units of cords it is correct as that was the only requirement. Nice job guest.

Also acceptable would have been:

"As many cords of wood as a woodchuck could if a woodchuck could chuck wood"

or

"8 cords"

or

"jdsoallerjkon324092345rflkasjdf cords"

You guys get the point.

I'm still working on the first puzzle, but the answer to the second question "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? " is 42.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

If you say make sure your answer is in units of cords, and you are asking how much wood....?, wouldn't that be the same things as asking how many cords of wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Therefore an answer of 1 or 2 or 5.6 or 42 be correct?

If someone answered 15 cubic meters, then I would agree, their answer should be incorrect.

I don't know....do you think "Please Make Sure Your Answer is in Units of Cords" is too ambiguous?

I'm going to assume that the units of cords are on that chalkboard. Correct answer!

Depend on the size of the chuck in the wood lathe,and whether the wood piece is tightly or loosely mounted in the chuck, and the rpm of the lathe,the balance of the wood piece, whether a live center or dead center is used.If we use a standard triangluar piece of wood stock, as is commonly split, the imbalance is great, and the probablitity of it being chucked out of the woodchuck increases.If however, the piece is unsplit, and basically round the possibilty of it being chucked out of the woodchuck is reduced by a factor of 4 to one.However, much depends on the skill of the wood lathe operator.This goes back to the Pauli Uncertainty Priciple.The more we know about the speed of the lathe, the less we will know about the actual location of the woodpiece after being chucked from the chuck of the wood lathe.

On a quantum level, the wood piece is both chucked and unchucked at the same time.

On a political level, accord will never be reached in the Middle East.