Simple Math Problem
Discussion
I was invited to do an online assessment as part of a job application. I know I'm probably being stupid but I don't think any of the proposed answers are correct, can someone please put me out of my misery and tell me which one is correct, and why?
And no, I don't think I will be successful in my application if I can't figure this out.
And no, I don't think I will be successful in my application if I can't figure this out.
SpunkyGlory said:
I was invited to do an online assessment as part of a job application. I know I'm probably being stupid but I don't think any of the proposed answers are correct, can someone please put me out of my misery and tell me which one is correct, and why?
And no, I don't think I will be successful in my application if I can't figure this out.
144 (4 * 4 * 9)And no, I don't think I will be successful in my application if I can't figure this out.
.It's at least 192, and I suspect that's the answer.
Edit: Start with 24 along the side, stood on end. Then put another 24 stood on end next to them. That's 48 that takes up 1m of width, 1.22 of height, and effectively the full length of the container. You've then got enough space to lay 24 on their side across the other half of the container floor, and then another 24 on top of them, taking you to 96. You've then got enough space to stand 48 on their ends on top of the ones on the floor that are laying on their side (will be 2.22m in total), and another 48 on their sides on top of the ones that are standing on end on the floor. So 192.
Edit again: that was a bloody awful explanation. Just do this 24 times:
Edit: Start with 24 along the side, stood on end. Then put another 24 stood on end next to them. That's 48 that takes up 1m of width, 1.22 of height, and effectively the full length of the container. You've then got enough space to lay 24 on their side across the other half of the container floor, and then another 24 on top of them, taking you to 96. You've then got enough space to stand 48 on their ends on top of the ones on the floor that are laying on their side (will be 2.22m in total), and another 48 on their sides on top of the ones that are standing on end on the floor. So 192.
Edit again: that was a bloody awful explanation. Just do this 24 times:
Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Monday 24th July 13:25
Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Monday 24th July 14:55
John87 said:
I think you could fit 168 which isn't there. Put each box across the container and you could fit 24 at 4 high. This leaves enough space at the side for two rows facing the opposite way where you could also get 4 high and 9 along the length.
(24x4x1)+(9x4x2)
^ Was thinking this.....(24x4x1)+(9x4x2)
Roger Irrelevant said:
It's at least 192, and I suspect that's the answer.
Edit: Start with 24 along the side, stood on end. Then put another 24 stood on end next to them. That's 48 that takes up 1m of width, 1.22 of height, and effectively the full length of the container. You've then got enough space to lay 24 on their side across the other half of the container floor, and then another 24 on top of them, taking you to 96. You've then got enough space to stand 48 on their ends on top of the ones on the floor that are laying on their side (will be 2.22m in total), and another 48 on their sides on top of the ones that are standing on end on the floor. So 192.
Edit again: that was a bloody awful explanation. Just do this 24 times:
Very goodEdit: Start with 24 along the side, stood on end. Then put another 24 stood on end next to them. That's 48 that takes up 1m of width, 1.22 of height, and effectively the full length of the container. You've then got enough space to lay 24 on their side across the other half of the container floor, and then another 24 on top of them, taking you to 96. You've then got enough space to stand 48 on their ends on top of the ones on the floor that are laying on their side (will be 2.22m in total), and another 48 on their sides on top of the ones that are standing on end on the floor. So 192.
Edit again: that was a bloody awful explanation. Just do this 24 times:
Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Monday 24th July 13:25
Edited by Roger Irrelevant on Monday 24th July 14:55
Jim1064 said:
Very good
Thanks! 'Bin packing' problems of this type are often far, far from simple, even with only one size of item to be packed, and there's no single foolproof method of arriving at the best solution. A related example is the Kepler conjecture: this essentially says that the most efficient way of packing uniformly sized spheres is to arrange one layer in a hexagonal lattice, and then to arrange the next layer in the same way but with each sphere resting in a 'divots' created by the layer beneath. Obvious right? Greengrocers have known this since forever which is why oranges are arranged the way they are in crates. However from Kepler first positing this conjecture in 1611, it took over four hundred years for it to be proved! Roger Irrelevant said:
Jim1064 said:
Very good
Thanks! 'Bin packing' problems of this type are often far, far from simple, even with only one size of item to be packed, and there's no single foolproof method of arriving at the best solution. A related example is the Kepler conjecture: this essentially says that the most efficient way of packing uniformly sized spheres is to arrange one layer in a hexagonal lattice, and then to arrange the next layer in the same way but with each sphere resting in a 'divots' created by the layer beneath. Obvious right? Greengrocers have known this since forever which is why oranges are arranged the way they are in crates. However from Kepler first positing this conjecture in 1611, it took over four hundred years for it to be proved! 
https://www.iflscience.com/how-many-earths-can-fit...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff