TRocket wrote:
you were along the right lines( ) with the pixel stuff, i never said the inside of the squares had to be white, nor did i say they had to have an outline, so why not count where all the lines meet?
this is where being right-brained can be fun, since we look at the entire picture, instead of splitting it up, and ignoring the lines, so quickly.
It's not about being "right-brained", because everyone would assume you mean in the picture.
Offline
42. iPad power.
Offline
Wait just read above posts
If the squares 'don't have to be white inside', and where the lines meet counts, then what about the tiny black squares that make up those lines? Arguably, you could say those are squares that are connected, like the other ones, except without lines, because lines don't necessarily matter right
And the pixels that make up the black and white are squares
And you could split the pixels into smaller squares, if you wanted to and had proper equipment to see this small of a square
So uh
My new answer is ∞
Offline
Wickimen wrote:
Wait just read above posts
If the squares 'don't have to be white inside', and where the lines meet counts, then what about the tiny black squares that make up those lines? Arguably, you could say those are squares that are connected, like the other ones, except without lines, because lines don't necessarily matter right
And the pixels that make up the black and white are squares
And you could split the pixels into smaller squares, if you wanted to and had proper equipment to see this small of a square
So uh
My new answer is ∞
end of conversation
Offline
Wickimen wrote:
Wait just read above posts
If the squares 'don't have to be white inside', and where the lines meet counts, then what about the tiny black squares that make up those lines? Arguably, you could say those are squares that are connected, like the other ones, except without lines, because lines don't necessarily matter right
And the pixels that make up the black and white are squares
And you could split the pixels into smaller squares, if you wanted to and had proper equipment to see this small of a square
So uh
My new answer is ∞
∞ is the correct answer, well done!
Offline
Wickimen wrote:
veggieman001 wrote:
I think that there are lots of squares I win
I winned first!
('won' is a stupid word)
No be quiet mine was more exact
Offline
TRocket wrote:
you were along the right lines( ) with the pixel stuff, i never said the inside of the squares had to be white, nor did i say they had to have an outline, so why not count where all the lines meet?
this is where being right-brained can be fun, since we look at the entire picture, instead of splitting it up, and ignoring the lines, so quickly.
The idea that being right-brained means you get this automatically is pretty silly.
Our senses are shared between the sides and one person will not use more of a specific one.
You didn't provide proper instructions for this test and therefore set us up to fail on it.
Offline
soupoftomato wrote:
TRocket wrote:
you were along the right lines( ) with the pixel stuff, i never said the inside of the squares had to be white, nor did i say they had to have an outline, so why not count where all the lines meet?
this is where being right-brained can be fun, since we look at the entire picture, instead of splitting it up, and ignoring the lines, so quickly.The idea that being right-brained means you get this automatically is pretty silly.
Our senses are shared between the sides and one person will not use more of a specific one.
You didn't provide proper instructions for this test and therefore set us up to fail on it.
If you re-read it you will notice i never actually said it's easier for right brained people(just that we don't ignore the lines so quickly) i think the chances of a right brained person getting it are only slightly higher.
How are the instructions improper? They would have been if i'd said how many boxes are there
Offline
TRocket wrote:
soupoftomato wrote:
TRocket wrote:
you were along the right lines( ) with the pixel stuff, i never said the inside of the squares had to be white, nor did i say they had to have an outline, so why not count where all the lines meet?
this is where being right-brained can be fun, since we look at the entire picture, instead of splitting it up, and ignoring the lines, so quickly.The idea that being right-brained means you get this automatically is pretty silly.
Our senses are shared between the sides and one person will not use more of a specific one.
You didn't provide proper instructions for this test and therefore set us up to fail on it.If you re-read it you will notice i never actually said it's easier for right brained people(just that we don't ignore the lines so quickly) i think the chances of a right brained person getting it are only slightly higher.
How are the instructions improper? They would have been if i'd said how many boxes are there
All pixels are squares, but not all squares are pixels.
Offline
Offline
777w wrote:
CheeseMunchy wrote:
16.
wow man thats uncreative
Ikr XD
Offline
So, do the squares being invaded by other squares count as squares?
Offline
veggieman001 wrote:
Wait what about this square
http://oi50.tinypic.com/2nlv6eq.jpg
yep, and the same thing in lots of other places
Offline
TRocket wrote:
CheeseMunchy wrote:
So, do the squares being invaded by other squares count as squares?
if it's a square then it counts and you just called it a square so, yes it does count
Oh, ya.
Offline
I agree with Wicki and me then, there's infinite.
Offline
Well since the universe is a finite size there isn't infinite, just a lot.
Offline
This is rather silly.
If I showed you a picture of three circles, and asked you how many circles are there, the answer would not be ∞ simply because there are hundreds of 'circles' in the three large ones that we just cannot see. The answer is quite obviously three circles.
It just like you can look at the same picture of three circles and say 'there are infinite squares there' because of all the pixels. Its just foolish.
So, I've changed my answer. There is infinite smiley faces.
Last edited by wiimaster (2012-07-30 16:27:04)
Offline