Don't know what to tell you on this one. My original intention was to specify an actual box with real sides. I started with a 2.2 x 3.2 x 5.2 box, and rounded the volumes to integers, assuming there would be a nearby box with similar volumes. To my chagrin, tweaking the volumes to integers has apparently driven the sides to complex land. I was too clever (read lazy) for my own good, but Simon Plouffe can take solace that I fooled myself as well. About the 42... Under my original supposition of a R^3 box, there are no (positive) real box dimensions satisfying the problem. So 42 gets marked wrong. 42 is indeed as valid as any other numerical answer, that is to say, incorrect, but it is not as valid as the answer "no solution." For a C^3 box, 265 is the only solution. 42 again gets marked wrong. If the box were in C^4, 42 would squeak by, but I specifically wrote "cubic inches", not "tesseractal inches", so no dice. I wish people would just do their homework and not try to slide by without working (like me). On 4/8/2011 7:30 PM, Tom Rokicki wrote:
So 42 cubic inches is a correct answer to the original question, correct? Or at least as valid as the other answers?
David, would you mark "42 cubic inches" as correct?
This reminds me of the little-known fact that if you hold up a guinea pig by its tail, its eyes fall out (although strangely pet stores seldom warn of this).
-tom
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Gary Antonick <gantonick@post.harvard.edu> wrote: