The woman puts the apples right next to each other so that they touch.
Then she precisely cuts off 1/4 of both apples in one stroke.
Each man then takes one of the apples, while the woman gets the 2 quarter pieces.That way the woman gets 2/3 as much as a man, while doing all the work.
Lmao I thought you were stupid for a second, nice setup
Cut through both apples in one stroke so you take 1/3rd off each.
Or kill the middle dude, he looks shady anyways. Who only has one eyebrow??
The girl also has only one eyebrow. So the only one who does not fit is the left dude who has no eyebrows. He is already sweating, knowing it will be him.
They both have two eyebrows, but through their confusion, the right brow has climbed into the hair... blondies have vanished all together.
But you're only limited to one stroke of the knife. Does that mean the other two get to eat the middle guy and a whole apple each?
Winning!
The fuck is this, the giants knife that it breaks after a single cut
Yes
I mean, sharing the two apples equally between three would disqualify the stabbing in my opinion. As the question being asked is to share the apple equally between three. So you'd end up cutting the apple with a bloody knife and giving some to the corpse.
It just says that the three want to share the apples equally, not necessarily between all three. There's room for a little stabbing.
I would just assume if three want to share something equally, it includes all three having some sort of capacity to acknowledge the share. Once one is dead it is factual that you are only sharing between two. Which does not satisfy the criteria.
You position the apple so that cutting a straight line across both apples removed 1/3 of each apple so there are 2- 2/3 piece of apples and 2-1/3 pieces so everyone gets 2/3 of an apple. This is basic math and logic
Yeah, but it does not occur to me easily. Because in practice, I would not be able to guess where to cut a sphere to get exactly 1/3. And that is without taking the core into account...
So my brain initially discarded that option without thinking about it.
Its still the best option, you just have tk be close enough sk that everyones piece is +- 5% most people wont be down for the other option unless one of the participants is c-suite or a billionaire.
Basic math sure. Basic logic would be that cutting a third of two apples in the same cut is the most possible effort for no benefit.
Meh not as exciting as murder.
The same cut cuts 2/3 of each apple.
... Or someone gets stabbed.
Yes but I lack the murderous intent
With a single swing of the knife, strike them with the knife's flat side and launch both apples into the center of a nearby ant hill. No one gets any apples. We are now equal.
The ants get apples though
They will naturally share them equally
Kill the lady so they can't reproduce throwing off the ratio, also when the guys find out their are no more women you will double the fruit in the room.
You can "guess" at a 3rd of each, but that is it.
Another solution is to cut both apples in half with one stroke and only eat 3 of the halves.
Place the apples together, I mean on a straight line. Use the Knife to cut the middle of both. It divides into 4 pieces, take one each, and I take the last one.
Reminds me of that anecdote of the dying sultan that had three sons and 17 camels to divide among them
Interesting puzzle. Why is it that people rather choose to break the foundations of peaceful life with other humans, and consider killing one of the three? The 2/3s solution is just this tiny bit harder and not 100% exact in practice. But we don't need to kill someone?
Also interesting for me: Why does it seem more obvious/logical to just break the law instead of breaking the stupid "JuSt usE It 1 tiME" instruction? We could just cut the apples in small slices so everyone can eat what they like and not be assholes about it?
Why is it easier to fall back to just (virtually) killing people as a reflex?
Because you are the direct descendent of a murderer, a rapist, a thief, a slaver, a raider, a pillager, a conquerer, and a genocider.
I don't care who you are or where you are from. Sometime in the near or distant past, you had ancestors that did each of these. Some of these crimes are more relevant in the present day; the Holocaust or Jim Crow have a lot more effect on present sociology than Rome's genocide of Carthage. But go back far enough, and each and every one of us is descended from a monster.
Violence is simply part of us, and it has since before we were even human. If it ever existed, the "pacifist" gene was weeded out of the gene pool a long time ago
Well, I'm also probably the descendent of someone who was murdered, raped, stolen from, raided, or enslaved. And of educators, healers/medical practitioners, maybe activists for a good cause, artists. What's your point? All of these things just got deleted from the DNA somehow? And the DNA just magically predetermines all of my thoughts and behavior?
