@MsNosis
one common problem with these kinds of puzzles are that about half of them are great fun, easily worth the time trying to solve, while the other half is some annoying trick question or requires overly complicated mathematics, that they are absolutely just wasted effort...
@Noctosphere
I guess we won't agree on what a "single cut" is, because what I see is two cuts.
@thechessplayer7076
You can write 4 with 3 lines, which is a square of 2
@verkuilb
If the “cut” in Puzzle 1 is just 1 cut, even though it changes direction, then in Puzzle 7, you can draw any geometric square with just ONE line, by having that line change direction three times.
@ericherde1
21:47 The official solution is dumber than the outside-the-box solutions.
@mr.freire9167
A solution to puzzle 7 could be to draw "IX", which is 9 in roman numerals and 9 is a square, as shown in the video.
@hhgygy
Solution to Puzzle 6 is overcomplicated: just extend the line that has 40° degree to the other parallel, now you have a rectangle with the following angles: 40°, 160°, 100° and x which add up to 360° Solved. (If you don't get it: 40°is due to the parallel lines, 160°is due to adjacent angle 20°, 100°is due to adjacent angle 80°)
@linguotgr
For puzzle 2, I think it can be much simpler to solve this one if you just consider that walking at four miles an hour means you go one mile in 15 minutes. if you walk up hill at three miles per hour, thats one mile in 20 minutes, and if you walk down hill at six miles an hour, thats one mile in 10 minutes. So since its the same path, each mile walked twice, meaning once walked in each direction, takes 30 minutes, regardless of whether it was flat or sloped. Therefore in six hours, you will have walked a twelve mile path, twice.
@JLvatron
In the words of Steve Harvey, in puzzle 1 you got "Lucky-lucky-lucky!" I solved puzzle 2. That last puzzle was unfair by all accounts!
@Misteribel
"Mind blowing" is a much better title than your usual "only geniuses can solve this". Thanks for improving this wonderful channel even further.
@fribeiro
you can also draw a square as IX (roman number 9, which is a square of 3)
@ariaden
> So let's just count out six squares and see if we get lucky. Ah, the good old way of solving NP problems efficiently by getting lucky.
@davelordy
'Mind Blowing' is somewhat of an exaggeration.
@WRSomsky
For the second part of 4, you can just reflect the non-diagonal matchsticks across the diagonal. The shape is chiral, so it's mirror isn't the same shape.
@usmh
I've been going over Youtube's available riddles, and your video is quite a bit above the average quality. Some solid work went into this one, well done!
@LucaBorghetti-s5z
1:30 isnt that 2 cuts?
@xDanKaix
My initial idea for the square with 3 lines was to draw 1 line that stars straight then at some point starts curving to make an arc making a 180° turn and going back parallel to the beginning of that line (kinda like a capital D but without the left side and extending both ends). You then just use the other 2 lines parallel to each other and perpendicular to both ends of that first drawn line and you now have a square.
@mrg0th1er83
The out of the box solution for the angles between parallel lines was my first instinct. It feels a lot more intuitive to me.
@dbalpert
For the Lewis Carroll puzzle, when a problem seems to have insufficient information like this I start with assuming something is zero when possible. For instance, assume LC walked on a level surface and then up a vanishingly small hill. Then he’s walking for 6 hours at 4 mph or 24 miles. There’s nothing contradictory here, so it has to be an answer of 24 since there wasn’t any constraint on the hill size. But we can check and see if 24 also works if the level surface is vanishingly small and it’s all on the hill. Then the hill is 12 miles long, so he would walk for 4 hours up and 2 hours down, which is 6 hours and that fits too. Therefore whatever the size of the flat and the hill, even zero for one or the other, gets the same answer. And that’s the answer!
@QuippersUnited