Sarah
Sarah
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Can you
hang a picture with 1 piece of string and 2 pegs so that
if you remove any one peg, the picture will fall?
(I can think of a daft answer but I think it misses the
point)
|
roko
mijic
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 03:23 pm: |
|
looks
like it might involve twisting the rope in some way ...
presumably the rope is already attached to the picture in
2 places?
|
Vicky
Neale
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:12 pm: |
|
How about
something like this? I'm not quite sure whether I've
understood the problem correctly. I think the picture
will get lower down the wall if either peg is removed,
but not fall off completely in one case.

(Please excuse the quality of the graphic - the pegs are
supposed to be vertically above each other)
Vicky
|
Nicola
Coles
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:26 pm: |
|
Sarah,
what do you mean by 'fall'; fall lower or fall to the
floor?
|
James
Cranch
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:34 pm: |
|
I don't
mean to put words in Sarah's mouth, but if this is the
same problem as I've seen before, then it means "fall to
the floor" (and the problem's a fine
poser).
|
David
Loeffler
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:38 pm: |
|
The best
I can do is

(sorry, this is a truly dreadful graphic).
In this case, if you remove the top peg the picture will
fall off; if you remove the bottom one, the picture just
falls down slightly (as the string pulls tight around the
top peg)
David
|
James
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:39 pm: |
|
I think the
answer is no because the rope must be looped over at
least one of the pegs, so removing one peg will leave the
other which has the rope looped over it.
Unless this sort of thing is allowed.
Put the pegs in half way, so the picture can only be
supported if both pegs are in
James
|
Nicola
Coles
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Maybe
this is allowed...

...but maybe not
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 05:44 pm: |
|
I think I
have a solution (it's a great puzzle by the
way).
Unfortunately, the website where
Dan put his solution no longer exists - but if you keep
reading, you'll find a solution here.
|
Ian
Short
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 06:26 pm: |
|
There
seems to be a link with winding numbers, for anyone who
knows of them. Perhaps a reasonable way to approach it
would be to look for curves, strings with 0 winding
number about both pegs.
Fantastic picture Dan!
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 07:52 pm: |
|
Ian,
that's exactly right it's just winding numbers I think.
And thanks everyone for your compliments on my pictures!
For an encore, here are two solutions my housemates came
up with:
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 07:53 pm: |
|
The left
hand one is supposed to be a thick knot between two close
together pegs.
|
Olof
Sisask
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Here's
another solution:
[Woops, I should mention that if you don't want to see a
solution, look away now!]

Obtained by the winding number principle.
Regards,
Olof
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Wednesday, 25
February, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Excellent
solution Olof, very symmetrical.
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Thursday, 26
February, 2004 - 12:58 am: |
|
An update for advanced readers. Stop reading this post
now if you haven't done a university level topology course of some sort.
Write
for the inclusion of the plane
minus two points into the plane minus a single point. These induce maps
on the fundamental
groups of the twospaces. The original questionis asking for anon-zero
element
in
. However, since
is homotopically equivalent to a one point union of two circles it has
fundamental group isomorphic to the free group on two generators, say
where
corresponds to a loop around
and
to a loop around
. So, for example, Olof's picture above is
and is
therefore one of the four simplest possible examples (another is mine
which is
). Now, writing
and
we get
and similarly
. So the kernel of
is
just the elements where the sum of the powers of the
components
is 0 and the sum of the powers of the
components is 0. This allows
us to construct examples of arbitrary complexity. For example,
(see the picture below, I hope I drew
it correctly). Well, I hope that was interesting.
|
Ian
Short
|
| Posted on Thursday, 26
February, 2004 - 11:37 am: |
|
For
people who don't know about winding numbers, here's a
simple explanation.
# Imagine an ant crawls along the string, all the way
round until it reaches its original starting position
(the string is a closed loop that connects up behind the
picture).
# Imagine a locust sitting on one of the pegs facing the
ant. The locust stays on the peg and rotates as the ant
moves along the string because it always stays facing the
ant.
# For example, if the string was a circle and the locust
sat in the middle then it would rotate 360 degrees, all
the way round, as the ant encircled it once. In that case
we say that the winding number of the string about the
locust is 1. One rotation. If the ant did two laps,
winding number would be 2. If it did one lap in opposite
direction, winding number would be -1.
# Now look at Dan's diagram above this message. Imagine a
locust on the right hand peg and an ant crawling round
the string. As the ant crawls, locust rotates this way
and that, but its total number of rotations, it winding
number, is 0.
# I presume this is how Dan conceived the above
complicated solution (?). Well not necessarily with ant
and locust, it works with any insects.
Ian
|
Olof
Sisask
|
| Posted on Thursday, 26
February, 2004 - 05:55 pm: |
|
Great
stuff, Dan. Really nice.
Olof
|
Sarah
Sarah
|
| Posted on Friday, 27
February, 2004 - 01:00 pm: |
|
I
understand that for every time the string goes clockwise
round a peg, it has to go back round anticlockwise, but
not what (if any) the constraints are on which loops have
to go in front of each other. I think I can see how to
construct an example (by starting with a simple one, then
adding loops at either end which cancel each other out)
but not how to see if, for example, this would
work.
Sarah
PS it is a DUGONG NOT A MANATEE
|
Sarah
Sarah
|
| Posted on Friday, 27
February, 2004 - 01:02 pm: |
|
(the black
dots are the pegs, the red dots are on anticlockwise
loops, and the blue dots are on clockwise loops)
|
Dan
Goodman
|
| Posted on Friday, 27
February, 2004 - 01:57 pm: |
|
There are
no constraints, as long as the number of red and blue
dots on the left are the same and the number of red and
blue on the right are the same, it will work. Here's a
nice way of seeing why. First of all, pull your string
tight so that it's tightly wound around the two pegs.
Now, you should have a vertical line from the picture to
the left hand peg and then from the left peg to the right
peg and then down to the picture again. Now, put your
finger halfway between the two pegs and pull down to the
top of the picture frame. You should now have a sort of M
shape in string. Now put both fingers at the middle point
of this M and move them in opposite directions so that
you get the string doing the following: it goes up from
the frame to the left peg, down to where it started from,
across the frame to directly underneath the right peg, up
to the right peg and straight down again. Now your string
should be divided into (a) segments which go up, round
the left peg either clockwise or anticlockwise, and then
down again, (b) the same except for the right peg, (c)
segments going from the point directly beneath the left
peg to the point beneath the right peg, or the other way
round. When you remove the left peg, for example, it is
as if you just cut away all the segments in (a), so
you're just left with the bits in (b) and (c), in other
words basically just the bits going round the right hand
peg. Since you've made sure that the number of times
you've gone round the right peg anticlockwise is the same
as the number of times clockwise, this remaining bit will
unravel. And the same thing works if you remove the right
hand peg.
|