Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:56:57 UTC No. 16093352

3x17

t. mechE

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:00:25 UTC No. 16093356

>>16093352
wrong

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:05:12 UTC No. 16093362

Shouldn't the trailer be visible in the bottom pic?

Anyway, there's 1 3x3 cube, 1 2x2 cube, and 10 1x1 cubes, for a grand total of 12 cubes.

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:07:13 UTC No. 16093364

>>16093362
Cubes are counted as 1x1

Hint answer is a range. Max 51

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:23:49 UTC No. 16093387

>>16093349
do your own homework faggot

Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 23:37:49 UTC No. 16093404

>>16093349
Ah, the solution to the equation involving cubes on a truck is a minimum of 31 to maximum of 51.

Well, of course, it's as clear as day to anyone who possesses a three-dimensional artistic vision. You see, one must transcend the mundane confines of ordinary thought and delve into the realm of spatial creativity, much like a sophisticated sculptor visualizing a masterpiece.

It's a mere exercise in spatial cognition, really. Just envision the truck as a canvas and the cubes as intricate geometric sculptures awaiting placement. With a refined understanding of three-dimensional space, one can effortlessly discern the optimal configuration, much like an artist effortlessly visualizes a sculpture before chiseling away at the marble.

Honestly, it's elementary when approached with the right mindset. One need only embrace the elegance of spatial geometry and let one's imagination soar beyond the constraints of mere numbers and equations. After all, true understanding lies not in rote calculations but in the boundless realm of artistic intuition and spatial perception.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:02:16 UTC No. 16093425

>>16093364
32 to 51

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:04:20 UTC No. 16093432

>>16093425
Oops, I meant 35 to 51

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:07:47 UTC No. 16093436

>>16093349
>Assume no floating boxes.
Why would you assume that

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:26:51 UTC No. 16093459

>>16093349
51 max. Probably less, because it has to be tricky.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:31:52 UTC No. 16093464

>>16093432
Wrong but closer

>>16093459
Hint: only one side is shown.

<) |____

<) ___|_

This is an eye <)

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:45:33 UTC No. 16093471

>>16093349
Impossible to say without extra information. Assuming you mean symmetry somehow

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:49:43 UTC No. 16093473

>>16093349
51 assuming no shenanigans at all.
35 is the lowest it could be, like if the two sides you don't see have nothing stacked on the bottom layer..

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:54:27 UTC No. 16093479

>>16093349
Anything between 47 to 51.
Fewer if the cubes are allowed to float like in Minecraft.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:59:44 UTC No. 16093486

>>16093473
It’s lower than 35. May need to draw it out so you can see

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:01:32 UTC No. 16093487

>>16093471
Yeah it’s a gimmick question that there isn’t one answer due to symmetry but you can still find the min and max

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:03:34 UTC No. 16093490

35 to 51, op you are wrong with <35

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:13:00 UTC No. 16093493

>>16093490
Bottom layer is implied 21 as the cubes can’t float.

Top layer only needs 4 cube
—xx
-x
x


Apply the top layer logic to the middle and you will get an answer less than 35 which is why I mention to draw it out. Don’t want to spoil the answer for you

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:14:17 UTC No. 16093494

Bottom must be 21 for top to make sense. Side implies at least 6 in the middle and 4 at the top. The cubes can be arranged in a zigzag pattern such that we get the back POV. The lower bound is 31.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:17:39 UTC No. 16093496

>>16093494
This anon is correct.

Good job

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:20:10 UTC No. 16093499

>>16093352
>engie is retarded
lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 01:35:25 UTC No. 16093508

>>16093436
Answer is trickier with floating cubes. I wonder how much of the population can find the answer if they know the trick but aren’t allowed to use pen & paper. Pure spatial reasoning

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:09:31 UTC No. 16093541

21+18+12=51

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:16:57 UTC No. 16093557

>>16093541

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:40:59 UTC No. 16093583

>>16093508
Got to 21 but maybe there is a way to eliminate one of the green squares.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:44:32 UTC No. 16093585

>>16093583
You cannot go below 21 without breaking the top view. This is optimal.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:51:14 UTC No. 16093592

>>16093585
Oof kind of obvious can’t be below 21 now that I think about the OP image

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:53:26 UTC No. 16093598

>>16093585
>>16093592
With floating cubes the minimum will always be equivalent to the largest side?

I can’t think of a scenario where the minimum would be bigger than largest side.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:01:37 UTC No. 16093607

>>16093598
>With floating cubes the minimum will always be equivalent to the largest side?
Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure this scenario needs 6 cubes, not 5.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:18:18 UTC No. 16093624

>>16093607
Yeah youre right this would be 6

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:27:10 UTC No. 16093635

>>16093349
zero, the first two are painted on walls and last one is painted on the cart

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 03:30:16 UTC No. 16093642

>>16093436
Not OP, but that violates the law of gravity

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:02:39 UTC No. 16093676

Okay, but what if falling boxes?

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:21:27 UTC No. 16093698

You can get below 31 without floating boxes. Have 2 3 stacks and 2 2 stacks share bases. Drops the total to 29.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 05:39:04 UTC No. 16093747

>>16093698
21 with floating see >>16093583

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 05:49:33 UTC No. 16093758

>>16093349
Boxes don’t float you fucking morons.

>top
There are at least 21 boxes
>side
10 more boxes, so there are at least 31
>back
4 more boxes, so at least 35. Max is 51.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:00:40 UTC No. 16093764

>>16093747
I said without floating. You can conceal offset boxes under and behind the others and use them to support multiple stacks above them.

No floating. No irregularly shaped boxes. No extra props. It's a perfectly fair solution that lowers the minimum from 31 to 29. You just need to think outside the box. Pardon the pun.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:07:51 UTC No. 16093768

>>16093764

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:46:22 UTC No. 16093798

>>16093349
floating
3 + 3 + 3 +3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 21

without floating
4(3 + 2) + 2(3+1) + 3 = 31

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 06:53:50 UTC No. 16093804

>>16093764
>>16093768
makes sense

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:35:51 UTC No. 16093952

>>16093349
35 min, 51 max

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 10:00:44 UTC No. 16093978

>>16093952
From back to front

X __
X __
XXX

_X_
_X_
XXX

__ X
__ X
XXX

X __
X __
XXX

___
X __
XXX

___
X __
XXX

___
___
XXX

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 18:28:54 UTC No. 16094612

>>16093349
in real life the answer would be 51. any other answer is arbitrary and sophomaniacal

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 19:07:12 UTC No. 16094666

>>16093349
51 and the ukraine lost

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:34:49 UTC No. 16095012

>>16093349
insufficient information

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:41:12 UTC No. 16095027

>>16093349
51: (7*3) + (6*3) + (4*3).
I have to assume no floating boxes, so I will also assume the illlustrator just can't into perspective.

Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:44:56 UTC No. 16095029

>>16093349
Assuming that every box is 1x1:
>Bottom layer: 7x3x1
>Middle layer: 6x3x1
>Top layer: 4x3x1
>Total: (6 + 4 + 7) x 3 = 51
It's possible that 8 boxes could be 3x1 or 2x1, but I'm going to ignore those cases.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:18:54 UTC No. 16095190

My solution is 21 with floaters
Can't go lower since top view has 21 squares

Back to front

X__
_X_
__X

_X_
__X
X__

__X
_X_
X__

__X
X__
_X_

___
__X
XX_

___
__X
XX_

____
____
XXX

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:40:58 UTC No. 16095214

>>16095190
new solution: 23 without any floaters
all the blocks could be structurally supported if they are all welded together

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:58:38 UTC No. 16095229

Each slice can have at most 17 blocks, so the max is 51.
However, the center could be hollow, in this case you only need 9 blocks for the center, this gives 43 blocks total.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:00:02 UTC No. 16095231

>>16095229
One of the sides could also be hollow, though. So 35 could also work.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:04:46 UTC No. 16095234

>>16095214
Shit messed up

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:55:23 UTC No. 16095277

>>16093349
There might be some gaps for example in the middle row which are neither visible from top nor front.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:00:18 UTC No. 16095282

>>16095214
fixed
24

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:22:24 UTC No. 16095302

>>16093349
51. You don't want uneven weight distribution on either side of a trailer.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:24:14 UTC No. 16095304

>>16095214
>if they are all welded together
Wow you're retarded. So your answer is 1 then?

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:27:20 UTC No. 16095309

>>16095304
multiple boxes welded together
or some other interlocking system

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:30:03 UTC No. 16095313

>>16095282
You forgot to support the 2 floating blocks in the back on the second level.

That said, allowing sticking, the answer IS 24.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:33:34 UTC No. 16095320

>>16095313
double fixed

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:44:17 UTC No. 16095427

>>16095320
>>16095313
23 for sticking

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:16:44 UTC No. 16095488

>>16093349

51. Just count the squares on the side view and multiply my 3 (17 x 3 = 51)

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:22:03 UTC No. 16095495

>>16093349
No It's not easy and It's all just wrong mindfuck or just made by a retard.
You can't have accurate idea if boxes are mssing or not looking from the top perspective or from behind.
There's no exact answer to this shitty stupid problem.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:49:22 UTC No. 16095672

>>16093356
Prove it. Prove it's not 51.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:55:12 UTC No. 16095943

>>16095190
>>16095214
>>16095282
>>16095313
>>16095320
>>16095427
These posts brought to you by Dunning & Kruger.

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:19:59 UTC No. 16096068

>>16095943
Post ur 23 sticky solution

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:52:35 UTC No. 16096585

>>16093349
How do we know they’re cubes? They could just be walls. The answer could be 0. There could also be infinitely many smaller cubes within the walls. You’re all idiots

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:09:40 UTC No. 16096603

>>16093349
somewhere between 35-51

Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:21:55 UTC No. 16096618

>>16096603
*31

But run her over the weighbridge, see what they put in those boxes

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:55:43 UTC No. 16098105

>>16093635
in the end im the only one right

Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:41:46 UTC No. 16098169

>>16098105
what if there is a secret box in the fake box truck? what then buddy?