>The teacher is right by the way.

No shit Sherlock

>teacher is right

wat

>>3832013

There's still several people on /v/ trying to argue 20 minutes is the answer.

Bitches don't know you need one cut to get two pieces

that's a stupid question unless you are defining the board and the cuts

>implying the answer isn't 20 minutes

>>3832018
That's what the guy answering the question thought, and apparently it's wrong.

One cut = two pieces = 10 minutes
Two cuts = three pieces = 15 minutes?

15 minutes would be absolutely right if it took two cuts to make two pieces.

ITT: fags who think twice as many cuts takes thrice as much as time

question is ambigous, kid is probably right because on that picture it is a rod of would that is cut in half (seriously, who the fuck ould saw that fucking slowly??)
so both cuts are the same, so 2 cuts made instead of 1, takes twice as long.

question can be interpreted (if you ignore the fucking image next to the question) that the board is square, and after sawing it in half, 1 of the pieces was taken and sawed in half again, but seeing as this new piece is smaller, it takes only half the time to cut, so only 5 minutes for that second cut, but that is pretty presmptuous anyway seeing as how the question says nothing about that, and has a completely unrelated image of a ROD of wood.

>>3832007
To cut it in two, you make one cut. So it takes her ten minutes to make one cut. To get three pieces, you need another cut. That's another ten minutes. The answer is 20, the teacher is a moron.

>>3832027
> how women really are
derps with breasts

>>3832007
>teacher is right by the way
retard or troll?
<<<

1 Cut to get 2 Pieces = 10 Minutes
2 Cuts to get 3 Pieces = 20 Minutes

why is this still floating around its not even a good one because its obviously 20 minutes.

go back to spamming monty hall or something

20 minutes.

>>3832033
>trice as much time
1.5 X as much time, FTFY
seriously, am i surrounded only by retards!??

sage

Looks like we got a lot of box thinkers on /sci/

>>3832062

>derp wat is trol

10 minutes.

Fold the board in half before you cut it.

>>3832068
Looks like this person can't think outside the box either then, since you can now take any amount of time you like to make a cut.

>>3832068

>not understanding the depth of the question

Frankly, the question leaves a lot of the information needed to actually arrive at the correct answer up to the interpretation of the reader.

Also, the only information we are given is that image so go off the damn image and don't make any assumptions about different shapes and what not.

Most people would think of half in this way.

==============

Cut it in half you get.

=====

But, that changes nothing and the answer would be 20 as the kid said.


That said you could also look at it in this way.

|-|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

If you think of it like that cutting it in half would get you this.

||
||
||
||
||
||

In which case the answer is still fucking 20 because you'd still be cutting the same amount of fucking wood.

tl;dr
The kid is right and I just made you think like there was a slight chance the teacher was right.

>>3832080
twice as much thickness = twice as much cutting time.

>minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMaOLCS9Vlg

>>3832081

>Implying you can cut it at all

>>3832081
cut of a tiny corner, 3 seconds, and the board is in 3 pieces now.
...question was stupid and ambigous anyway.

>>3832068

Next time, try looking at the question. There's a difference between thinking outside the box and answering a totally different question to what was asked.

>>3832094

> On /sci/
> Suppose to be smart
> Thinks you're suppose to look at the picture next to a question and it's not just there for decoration.

Are you that kid that measures the angles of diagram to find X in Trigonometry?

>>3832097

>suppose to be smart

dat grammar!

Using only 2 cuts cut a board into 4 equal pieces

Correct answer will get cake

>>3832097
Whenever they don't specify that the image is not drawn to scale, why not

>twice as much thickness = twice as much cutting time.
>implying the volume of cutting is the only work done.
It probably takes 2 seconds to run this board through a bandsaw, and just takes her 10 minutes to set up the board in the machine in the first place.

Thus 3 pieces take 10 minutes if you fold it in half and work at the same rate.

>>3832097
that picture is pretty fucking misleading if the wooden board is actually square/rectangular and has significant width.

>>3832100
One vertical cut all the way through, one horizontal cut.

that's easy as fuck

>>3832099
>Nit-Pick on Grammar
>In the Math and Science board.
Oh you.

>>3832106
again, very presumptous,
like i said, the question is fucking stupid and ambigous.

>IT TOOK 10 MINUTES TO CREATE 2 PIECES SO IT WILL TAKE 5 MINUTES TO CREATE 1 PIECE
This is what America's teachers actually believe.

>>3832109

So /sci/ can think out the box

Here is some cake

Question is unsolvable because ill defined!

>>3832109
if a cut stops as soon as you reach air, half way through that second cut you will stop and start again, so its 3 cuts really, and 4 equal pieces.

It takes 10 minutes to make a cut.

It takes 2 cuts to cut a board into 3 pieces.

I won't give the answer yet. Do you agree with the facts so far?

>>3832124
Go on....

>>3832124
No

Only correct answer: Any time between the smallest amount of time possible and 20 minutes, depending on where the second cut is placed.

I think we can all agree on this

>>3832068

the question states "saw a board"

a board is not a block

you would not use a handsaw to "rip" the board

you would not cut at that angle without a mitre box

the circles would be impossible.

Learn some fucking hand tool basics before you start trying to get overly technical on a grade school question

>>3832116
FTFY

>>3832007

the teacher is right if Marie is cutting the two pieces off the end of a larger piece of wood, like slices of bread. In that case it would take 15 minutes to cut off three pieces.

Everyone gets confused because the question implies she cuts the wood in half to get two pieces, and into equal thirds to get three pieces, which would take 20 minutes.

Teacher needs to take the ambiguity out of her language.

It takes 10 minutes to make a cut however far she's cutting.

So if her second cut is over less distance it takes less time.

>>3832124

It takes 2 hands to make a cut.

It takes 2 cuts to cut a board into 3 pieces.

I won't give the answer yet. Do you agree with the facts so far?

>the teacher is right if Marie is cutting the two pieces off the end of a larger piece of wood, like slices of bread. In that case it would take 15 minutes to cut off three pieces.
Well according to what you just said the teacher is wrong.
>It took Marie 10 minutes to saw *a* board *into* 2 pieces.
Not "to saw 2 pieces from a board"

>>3832112

newfriend detected!

>>3832007
what's the name of this method?