Armed with a sword and a shield, a proud knight combats a monstrous hydra with 100 heads.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
Hi so I am battling with this question at the moment.
"Armed with a sword and a shield, a proud knight combats a monstrous hydra with 100 heads. When he slashes, he removes 17 heads and 5 heads grow back. When he slices, he removes 6 heads and 33 grow back. When he cuts, 14 heads fall and 8 grow back. When he stabs, 2 heads fall and 23 grow back.
In order to kill the hydra, all its heads must be removed at some point, in which case no heads will grow back.
Can the knightâÂÂs sword and courage triumph against this mythological monster?"
I am assuming the hydra cannot grow more than the original 100 heads, and that you must cut off the exact amount (you can't slash 9 times).
My current working consists of:
rule a = shrink 6
rule b = shrink 12
rule c = grow 21
rule d = grow 27
b can be discounted as it's just aa
as 100 is the start point, and 6 is the minimum reduction some sum of 100 + c(x) + d(y) = a(z), or 100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) must equal a multiple of 6.
100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) = 6 * z where x, y, z are positive integers
simplifies to z = (7x/2) + (9y/2) + (50/3). For all positive integers x, y, there is no integer solution for z
I am not convinced this is enough proof.
linear-algebra proof-verification puzzle
New contributor
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
Hi so I am battling with this question at the moment.
"Armed with a sword and a shield, a proud knight combats a monstrous hydra with 100 heads. When he slashes, he removes 17 heads and 5 heads grow back. When he slices, he removes 6 heads and 33 grow back. When he cuts, 14 heads fall and 8 grow back. When he stabs, 2 heads fall and 23 grow back.
In order to kill the hydra, all its heads must be removed at some point, in which case no heads will grow back.
Can the knightâÂÂs sword and courage triumph against this mythological monster?"
I am assuming the hydra cannot grow more than the original 100 heads, and that you must cut off the exact amount (you can't slash 9 times).
My current working consists of:
rule a = shrink 6
rule b = shrink 12
rule c = grow 21
rule d = grow 27
b can be discounted as it's just aa
as 100 is the start point, and 6 is the minimum reduction some sum of 100 + c(x) + d(y) = a(z), or 100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) must equal a multiple of 6.
100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) = 6 * z where x, y, z are positive integers
simplifies to z = (7x/2) + (9y/2) + (50/3). For all positive integers x, y, there is no integer solution for z
I am not convinced this is enough proof.
linear-algebra proof-verification puzzle
New contributor
1
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
3
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
1
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
3
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday
 |Â
show 5 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
Hi so I am battling with this question at the moment.
"Armed with a sword and a shield, a proud knight combats a monstrous hydra with 100 heads. When he slashes, he removes 17 heads and 5 heads grow back. When he slices, he removes 6 heads and 33 grow back. When he cuts, 14 heads fall and 8 grow back. When he stabs, 2 heads fall and 23 grow back.
In order to kill the hydra, all its heads must be removed at some point, in which case no heads will grow back.
Can the knightâÂÂs sword and courage triumph against this mythological monster?"
I am assuming the hydra cannot grow more than the original 100 heads, and that you must cut off the exact amount (you can't slash 9 times).
My current working consists of:
rule a = shrink 6
rule b = shrink 12
rule c = grow 21
rule d = grow 27
b can be discounted as it's just aa
as 100 is the start point, and 6 is the minimum reduction some sum of 100 + c(x) + d(y) = a(z), or 100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) must equal a multiple of 6.
100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) = 6 * z where x, y, z are positive integers
simplifies to z = (7x/2) + (9y/2) + (50/3). For all positive integers x, y, there is no integer solution for z
I am not convinced this is enough proof.
linear-algebra proof-verification puzzle
New contributor
Hi so I am battling with this question at the moment.
"Armed with a sword and a shield, a proud knight combats a monstrous hydra with 100 heads. When he slashes, he removes 17 heads and 5 heads grow back. When he slices, he removes 6 heads and 33 grow back. When he cuts, 14 heads fall and 8 grow back. When he stabs, 2 heads fall and 23 grow back.
In order to kill the hydra, all its heads must be removed at some point, in which case no heads will grow back.
Can the knightâÂÂs sword and courage triumph against this mythological monster?"
I am assuming the hydra cannot grow more than the original 100 heads, and that you must cut off the exact amount (you can't slash 9 times).
My current working consists of:
rule a = shrink 6
rule b = shrink 12
rule c = grow 21
rule d = grow 27
b can be discounted as it's just aa
as 100 is the start point, and 6 is the minimum reduction some sum of 100 + c(x) + d(y) = a(z), or 100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) must equal a multiple of 6.
100 + (21 * x) + (27 * y) = 6 * z where x, y, z are positive integers
simplifies to z = (7x/2) + (9y/2) + (50/3). For all positive integers x, y, there is no integer solution for z
I am not convinced this is enough proof.
linear-algebra proof-verification puzzle
linear-algebra proof-verification puzzle
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Acccumulation
6,0842616
6,0842616
New contributor
asked yesterday
Dance
483
483
New contributor
New contributor
1
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
3
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
1
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
3
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday
 |Â
show 5 more comments
1
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
3
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
1
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
3
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday
1
1
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
3
3
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
1
1
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
3
3
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday
 |Â
show 5 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes it is enough proof. Another way to say it is that
$21x=3cdot 7 cdot x$ is always divisible by 3
$27y=3cdot 9 cdot y$ is always divisible by 3
$6z = 3cdot 2 cdot z$ is always divisible by 3
$100=3cdot 33+1$ gives rest 1 when divided by 3
And if you add something not divisible by 3 to something which is divisible by three you can never get something divisible by 3.
Another way to say it is left hand side will always be 1 modulo 3 and right hand side will always be 0 modulo 3. Numbers which have different modulos cannot be the same numbers.
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
The proof here is similar in spirit to the arbuzoid problem.
The net change of each operation to the number of heads is always a multiple of 3. Furthermore, the final operation must leave 0 heads before new heads grow back, which means that the number of heads before this operation must be the number of heads the operation removes in its first phase.
Together these two constraints imply that any successful strategy must end with an operation where 100 minus the number of heads removed in that operation is a multiple of 3. We check those differences:
$$100-17=83$$
$$100-6=94$$
$$100-14=86$$
$$100-2=98$$
None of these is a multiple of 3. Thus there is no winning strategy.
There remains no winning strategy if we assume that heads die and grow at the same time, since 100 itself is not a multiple of 3.
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes it is enough proof. Another way to say it is that
$21x=3cdot 7 cdot x$ is always divisible by 3
$27y=3cdot 9 cdot y$ is always divisible by 3
$6z = 3cdot 2 cdot z$ is always divisible by 3
$100=3cdot 33+1$ gives rest 1 when divided by 3
And if you add something not divisible by 3 to something which is divisible by three you can never get something divisible by 3.
Another way to say it is left hand side will always be 1 modulo 3 and right hand side will always be 0 modulo 3. Numbers which have different modulos cannot be the same numbers.
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes it is enough proof. Another way to say it is that
$21x=3cdot 7 cdot x$ is always divisible by 3
$27y=3cdot 9 cdot y$ is always divisible by 3
$6z = 3cdot 2 cdot z$ is always divisible by 3
$100=3cdot 33+1$ gives rest 1 when divided by 3
And if you add something not divisible by 3 to something which is divisible by three you can never get something divisible by 3.
Another way to say it is left hand side will always be 1 modulo 3 and right hand side will always be 0 modulo 3. Numbers which have different modulos cannot be the same numbers.
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
up vote
4
down vote
accepted
Yes it is enough proof. Another way to say it is that
$21x=3cdot 7 cdot x$ is always divisible by 3
$27y=3cdot 9 cdot y$ is always divisible by 3
$6z = 3cdot 2 cdot z$ is always divisible by 3
$100=3cdot 33+1$ gives rest 1 when divided by 3
And if you add something not divisible by 3 to something which is divisible by three you can never get something divisible by 3.
Another way to say it is left hand side will always be 1 modulo 3 and right hand side will always be 0 modulo 3. Numbers which have different modulos cannot be the same numbers.
Yes it is enough proof. Another way to say it is that
$21x=3cdot 7 cdot x$ is always divisible by 3
$27y=3cdot 9 cdot y$ is always divisible by 3
$6z = 3cdot 2 cdot z$ is always divisible by 3
$100=3cdot 33+1$ gives rest 1 when divided by 3
And if you add something not divisible by 3 to something which is divisible by three you can never get something divisible by 3.
Another way to say it is left hand side will always be 1 modulo 3 and right hand side will always be 0 modulo 3. Numbers which have different modulos cannot be the same numbers.
answered yesterday
mathreadler
14k72059
14k72059
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
Awesome, thank you so much. Still trying to get the hang of modulo, thank you for helping me understand.
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
The proof here is similar in spirit to the arbuzoid problem.
The net change of each operation to the number of heads is always a multiple of 3. Furthermore, the final operation must leave 0 heads before new heads grow back, which means that the number of heads before this operation must be the number of heads the operation removes in its first phase.
Together these two constraints imply that any successful strategy must end with an operation where 100 minus the number of heads removed in that operation is a multiple of 3. We check those differences:
$$100-17=83$$
$$100-6=94$$
$$100-14=86$$
$$100-2=98$$
None of these is a multiple of 3. Thus there is no winning strategy.
There remains no winning strategy if we assume that heads die and grow at the same time, since 100 itself is not a multiple of 3.
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
The proof here is similar in spirit to the arbuzoid problem.
The net change of each operation to the number of heads is always a multiple of 3. Furthermore, the final operation must leave 0 heads before new heads grow back, which means that the number of heads before this operation must be the number of heads the operation removes in its first phase.
Together these two constraints imply that any successful strategy must end with an operation where 100 minus the number of heads removed in that operation is a multiple of 3. We check those differences:
$$100-17=83$$
$$100-6=94$$
$$100-14=86$$
$$100-2=98$$
None of these is a multiple of 3. Thus there is no winning strategy.
There remains no winning strategy if we assume that heads die and grow at the same time, since 100 itself is not a multiple of 3.
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
The proof here is similar in spirit to the arbuzoid problem.
The net change of each operation to the number of heads is always a multiple of 3. Furthermore, the final operation must leave 0 heads before new heads grow back, which means that the number of heads before this operation must be the number of heads the operation removes in its first phase.
Together these two constraints imply that any successful strategy must end with an operation where 100 minus the number of heads removed in that operation is a multiple of 3. We check those differences:
$$100-17=83$$
$$100-6=94$$
$$100-14=86$$
$$100-2=98$$
None of these is a multiple of 3. Thus there is no winning strategy.
There remains no winning strategy if we assume that heads die and grow at the same time, since 100 itself is not a multiple of 3.
The proof here is similar in spirit to the arbuzoid problem.
The net change of each operation to the number of heads is always a multiple of 3. Furthermore, the final operation must leave 0 heads before new heads grow back, which means that the number of heads before this operation must be the number of heads the operation removes in its first phase.
Together these two constraints imply that any successful strategy must end with an operation where 100 minus the number of heads removed in that operation is a multiple of 3. We check those differences:
$$100-17=83$$
$$100-6=94$$
$$100-14=86$$
$$100-2=98$$
None of these is a multiple of 3. Thus there is no winning strategy.
There remains no winning strategy if we assume that heads die and grow at the same time, since 100 itself is not a multiple of 3.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Parcly Taxel
34.6k136991
34.6k136991
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
Thank you for clarifying, appreciate it a lot!
â Dance
yesterday
add a comment |Â
Dance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dance is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2945659%2farmed-with-a-sword-and-a-shield-a-proud-knight-combats-a-monstrous-hydra-with-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
If there are 17 heads left and he slashes, does hydra die before heads grow back, or will it live with 5 heads?
â mathreadler
yesterday
I am assuming that the head die and come back at the same time, so it will live with 5 heads.
â Dance
yesterday
3
@Dance: If that is the rule, then how can the hydra be killed at all? From any state?
â Henning Makholm
yesterday
1
What happens if he slashes when the hydra has 16 heads? If the answer is 4 heads, what happens if he slashes when the hydra has 4 heads?
â Joshua
yesterday
3
I don't think you should assume that the number of heads is limited to 100. Also, the question clearly states that if you remove all the heads, none will grow back, so if you slash a hydra with 17 heads, you get a hydra with no heads, so it does not grow five new ones.
â David Richerby
yesterday