The Lemon Fool

malkymoo wrote:No, I managed to come up with 111 minutes, then failed with the simple task of converting to hours and minutes!

Alas, 9 Thermidor II.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Logic dictates that all three working together would take less than any two.

That's not logic, that's a assumption which wasn't stated in the original problem. There are plenty of jobs where 2 people can perform at least as fast as 3. The one I postulated above (cutting down a tree with a two-handed saw) is one, I could think of plenty of others.

Scott.

swill453 wrote:

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Logic dictates that all three working together would take less than any two.

That's not logic, that's a assumption which wasn't stated in the original problem. There are plenty of jobs where 2 people can perform at least as fast as 3. The one I postulated above (cutting down a tree with a two-handed saw) is one, I could think of plenty of others.

Scott.

Most jobs where 2 are working and the 3rd a "supervisor", who is present, take longer than where the 2 workers are left alone I would think.

swill453 wrote:(e.g. cut down a tree with a two-handed saw)

Scott.

Or a mushroom.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I first saw that pic on a postcard, which I sent to my aunt who loved mushrooms, and would often gather them in the woods.

The title of this thread reminds me of those "three cogs" posters, e.g.,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 241329.stm


Julian F. G. W.