Put it in the B configuration. There are 12 boys, which can be thought of as 24 halves bundled in pairs: a half on the outside of the circle, and a half on the inside of the circle. (Conveniently, also, each bundled pair of halves includes one half with a flag and one half without a flag). Some of these halves are more substantial looking than others, mind you. Rotate it to the A configuration: There are still 24 hal…
Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
11–20 of 66 posts
Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#12Put it in the B configuration. There are 12 boys, which can be thought of as 24 halves bundled in pairs: a half on the outside of the circle, and a half on the inside of the circle. (Conveniently, also, each bundled pair of halves includes one half with a flag and one half without a flag). Some of these halves are more substantial looking than others, mind you. Rotate it to the A configuration: There are still 24 hal…
Which boy is gone? :)
The problem is one of discrete values. You are asking about "a boy", but there are no "a boy"s. There are only fractions of boys. The total sum of "boy fractions" is the same, but the number of pairs of "boy fractions" that meet the distinction of "a boy" changes. "A boy" does not vanish because there were never "a boy"s in the first place.
One might have better luck with "boy heads", and you can see that at roughly 5 oclock there is a "boy head" that turns into a "boy arm". So part of the trick is that some of the "boy fractions" change in your interpretation. Without the trick, you would reasonably say, "Wait, there is still a boy head there! So there are still 13 boys!"
Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#13Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#14in the A position, look at around 8 oclock where the two boys next to each other.
look at the "inside" boy, and then move clockwise and you just see just his foot on the inside, continue and you see a leg, going all the way around you can see almost all of the "inside boy" emerge.
in a like manner, look at the outside boy of the two boys together, and proceeding counter-clockwise you see the foot, the leg, etc as almost all of the outside boy emerges.
it reminds me of a trick where you take a stack of dollar bills and slice a thin strip from each one, with the slice taken on each successive bill moving across, and tape each bill together again.
At the end, tape all the little strips together and you have an extra bill!
Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#15Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#16Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#17Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which boy is gone? :)
My guess: The problem is one of discrete values. You are asking about "a boy", but there are no "a boy"s. There are only fractions of boys. The total sum of "boy fractions" is the same, but the number of pairs of "boy fractions" that meet the distinction of "a boy" changes. "A boy" does not vanish because there were never "a boy"s in the first place. One might have better luck with "boy heads", and you can see that a…
Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#19There's a good Numberphile video explaining this illusion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE44nr4d3iY (Hint: look at the heads)
This one includes flags as an easy hint.
Re: Disappearing Bicyclist – Sam Loyd (1906)
#20Can only count 13 boys whether from point A or B..what am I missing?
Definitely not an intuitive interface.