|
The only way this can be done with a single rope is either by exact measurement or proportions of the rope. Since you can neither measure it (no tools) nor find proportions (requires bending the rope) this cannot be done accurately.
However, if you have two ropes this may be possible:
Light both ends of one rope and one end of the second. When the first rope is fully burnt light the other end of the second rope.
|
|
|
|
|
Typical bullshit questions.
As for the rope, what are you allowed to do? Are you allowed to fold it in half?
The smilies are even more under-specified. What exactly are the moves you're allowed to use? "Use a combination of (2 + 1)" doesn't mean anything.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guessing that in the interview it wasn't in English, and it just doesn't translate well.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
It was in hindi, my native language. I am sorry couldnt translate that good.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry about it - I figured it was. Translating jokes and puzzles is never easy, because words often have multiple or subtle meanings, which don't translate well.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Sir,
Please dont be upset with me.
Firstly, It was asked to me. I dint make it up.
Secondly, you cant fold the rope.
Lastly, consider the smilies as balls. You are supposed to move the balls or place the balls.
Combination of (2+1) means either in the first move you pick 2 balls up and then 1 ball or vice versa, your wish.
Thanks,
Rahul
|
|
|
|
|
I blame the interviewer for this, not you.
Ok what are you allowed to do with the rope then? If you can only set it on fire and observe it from there on it'll just burn for an hour with nothing you can do about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Um.
How many ends does a rope have?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
You are nearing the answer OG. I guess you might have figured it out
|
|
|
|
|
That's in violation of my stated assumptions. In order to utilize both sides, you have to be able to light it twice, which means you can do more than just light it and then observe.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah - you just touch the two ends together and light them both at the same time!
(Or light one end from the other, but that produces a slightly less accurate 1/2 hour)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
You might have found a loophole.
|
|
|
|
|
It's good stuff, this rope theory! Cutting edge...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this case no noose is good news
|
|
|
|
|
Light it in the middle.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know where that is?
I would have liked to fold it in half, get the middle that way, then fold it again at 3/4 for part 2 of the question, but OP said no folding..
|
|
|
|
|
I'd fold it anyway. The interviewer sounds an ass. The question is likely something that has morphed beyond recognition with retelling.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Easy: Burn the interviewer first, then fold the rope.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks sir,
well i told him
to measure it for half an hour, burn it from both the sides. He told me, but then nothing of that rope will be left.
I said, as it is even if you cut the rope into half nothing will be left.
He then smiled. Actually i dint understand what was the intention.
|
|
|
|
|
Where's the constraint about not being able to fold the rope?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's the whole point - they expect you to talk about what do and how that would give the desired result - in other words its a test of your ability to reason and explain your reasoning (like so many of these wanky things).
So you could answer. fold rope in half, cut it and get two half-hour burns (ie light them simultaneously), or - as someone else said - light both ends. For the 45 mins, fold in half, fold one half in half again, then light the bend - the longer piece will burn for 45 mins, and so on.
For the smilies, it's easy to see how to move a group of 3 to swap the figure, does that count as 2+1 or 3 - you would be expected to reason that out.
I prefer to talk to someone generally about their work, get them to meet the team and talk about things they've actually done, including some technical discussion and reasons for why they took the approach they did. Simple reasoning tests like this where there is ambiguity, and where you are expected to reason about the answers have more value than many things done at interview, even though I wouldn't use them myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Sir,
Thats true. Capability and knowledge is every thing. This aptitude test and all bull sh*t. And on top of that what is the need to impose a criteria like 60% and above throughout academics? Its becoming frustrating now. In one company i cleared all aptitude and technical rounds, however one person who topped throughout his academics flunked these tests. Now what can be said about this? Well i hope these practices are not followed else where.
Thanks and Regards,
Rahul.
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul,
I hope these types of tests are used everywhere. And the criteria for being in the top 60% is merely an exclusion of the BOTTOM 40%, which shows someone who did not LOVE the degree, in my book.
And the Guy who did GREAT in school, and FAILED these tests is WHY they (we) give such tests. It is the opposite of working the system. All school tests are solvable. Not all problems in real life are. We need people who can figure that portion out... They have to know what they don't know, or realize they cannot solve the problem BEFORE they just start banging out code.
I use tests like these. Even worse... How many molecules of rubber comes off a tire in a single rotation, under normal wear conditions? If the person studied a lot of physics: If I push a fudge brownie out into space from the MIR space station. Will it explode/implode? Please explain?
To be clear, what I am looking for has NOTHING to do with the answer. It has to do with the reasoning, and their reactions to the question, and their follow-up questions.
Honestly, put yourself in their shoes. If you had 1,000 people to interview for 100 positions, and you wanted to hire the types of people who are going to do the best... How would you decide that?
- Personality? (doesn't work)
- Dress? (hardly?)
- Experience (maybe, but if you have 10:1, you probably pay on the low side, and you should, for the new people. Give me someone who wants a chance to prove themselves and have shown this during school)
It is a simple optimization, and a requirement to optimize. Interviewing takes time and costs money.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello Sir,
I completely understand what you want to say. I also understand that you are one of the recruiters. I have nothing against these tests. Its just my frustration. I understand the importance of these questions. and speaking about
Quote: And the criteria for being in the top 60% is merely an exclusion of the BOTTOM 40%
and it may also happen that due to bad fate or some family problem or something else, that student might have not performed in his academics, this doesnt mean that he dint respect his degree. You cant take away good and bad fate away from people.
These few people in top 60% are not able to debug something like below scenarios
1)string s="1,2,3,4,5";
s.split(',')[0];
2) Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
What they do is operate on thousands of variables. Throughout their academics the simply mug up the entire book. They have 100% attendance. So they get good internal marks. This is what brings them to 60% throughout.
I completely understand that there are 1000's of candidates and very few to interview and seal the position. Its just that : i just hope that you dont relate marks with intelligence,knowledge and capability. It might happen that in the bottom 40% that you left out might be a promising candidate.
One of my friends flunked an year due to bad fate. Now he is one of the best Dot Net architects i have ever met.
Today's generation dont want knowledge, they just want money, no one is willing to learn. They just want a good package. It is all because of this stupid education system today people lack knowledge.
And yes i understand everything and agree to what ever you said. But i just want to say never let go of a promising candidate. Ok now tell me a person has scored 60% throughout passes the interview, but fails to perform now what will you do? His marksheet, degree, etc all is a waste.
With due respect Sir, i just want to say , my aim here is not to oppose you or to fight with you. But please read the comments of Original Griff(MVP since many years and many people. You will come to know what we are saying please read other comments also. I hope you will realize the importance of an MVP title.) Not judging a person based on his knowledge and capability and taking into consideration his marks is not correct.
I understand optimizing is important, but sometimes there is a wrong optimization. Lastly i just want to say, i apologize if whatever i say has hurt you or i apologize if i was rude. Its just a difference of opinion nothing else. I request you to consider this discussion in a sporty way.
Thanks and Regards,
Rahul
|
|
|
|
|