Skip to main content
Posts
You and I have to travel from Startville to Endville, but we have
only one bicycle between us. So we decide to leapfrog: We’ll leave
Startville at the same time, you walking and I riding. I’ll ride for 1
mile, and then I’ll leave the bicycle at the side of the road and
continue on foot. When you reach the bicycle you’ll ride it for 1 mile,
passing me at some point, then leave the bicycle and continue walking. And
so on — we’ll continue in this way until we’ve both reached the
destination.
Will this save any time?
You say yes: Each of us is riding for part
of the distance, and riding is faster than walking, so using the bike
must increase our average speed.
I say no: One or the other of us is always walking; ultimately every
inch of the distance between Startville and Endville is traversed by
someone on foot. So the total time is unchanged — leapfrogging with the
bike is no better than walking the whole distance on foot.
Who’s right?
Look who is right in the case!
Where I went wrong?
That's going to save time for sure.
Let's assume that the distance between Startville and Endville is 2 miles. And suppose we walk at the same speed of 4 mph and ride bicycle at the speed of 12 mph.
Then I will travel for first 1 mile in 5 minutes leave the bicycle and start walking thereafter. You take 15 minutes to reach at the point to pick up bicycle and ride next mile. For next mile, I need 15 minutes as I am walking & you need only 5 minutes ride on bicycle. So exactly after 20 minutes we will reach at Endville.
And what if we had walked entire 2 miles distance? It would have taken 30 minutes for us to reach at the destination.
One thing you must have noticed, each of us walked for 1 mile only and ride on bicycle for other mile which saved 10 minutes of our journey. Imagine it as if we had 2 bicycles where we ride 1 mile in 5 minutes, leave bicycles and walk next mile in another 15 minutes.
So my argument in the case is totally wrong. It would have been correct if I had waited for you after finishing 1 mile ride on bicycle and then started to walk next mile.
In that case, you will reach at the destination in 20 minutes but I need 30 minutes as I wasted 10 minutes in middle.
Conclusion:
My argument -
"One or the other of us is always walking; ultimately every inch of the
distance between Startville and Endville is traversed by someone on
foot."
tells only half story.
Yes, ultimately every inch of the
distance between Startville and Endville is traversed by someone on
foot but the distance that each of us walk is equal though different parts of journey. And for the rest of distance we ride on bicycle where total time required for journey is saved.
200 students are arranged in 10 rows of 20 children. The
shortest student in each column is identified, and the tallest of these
is marked A. The tallest student in each row is identified, and the
shortest of these is marked B. If A and B are different people, which is
taller?
This person will be taller in any case!
Why the height comparison?
B will be always taller in any case.
Case 1 : If A and B are standing in the same row the obviously B is taller than A as B is tallest among all in that row.
Case 2 : If A and B are standing in the same column then still B is taller than A as A is shortest among all in that column.
Case 3 : If A and B are standing in different row and column then there must be somebody C which has same column as A and same row as B. This C is shorter than B (as B is tallest in row) and he is taller than A (as A is shortest in that column). That is B > C and C > A.
Hence, in any case, B is always taller than A.
