How can one prove this isn't possible?

Technically, you're drawing line segments, not lines, which are infinite

This is a solution.

Where did the line connecting (1,1) and (2,1) come from?

With two vertices of odd degree, you can't end up where you started w/o traversing one edge twice.

sorry that's meant to be (1,1) and (1,2)

Would you agree that drawing a line and then extending said line is still 1 line?

No idea what you are talking about when you say (1,1) and (2,1).

Wait actually isn't a solution because of

What do you mean, where did it come from?

Your numbering is wrong, but these lines can in fact be drawn according to the rules if you start at a vertex of odd degree.

I don't think the line has been extended. It was just one line.

and (1,1) and (1,2) are x,y coordinates if you will

Doesn't matter the way I numbered them, there's 5 lines.

No I extended it. I went from top left to top right then down to bottom right then to bottom left, up one dot, all the way to the right, draw back over that line to the left and then extend that line I had previously drawn to end back where I started.

If drawing over the same line was allowed this exercise would be too easy. Besides, I'd consider that to be two lines drawn, one from (1,3) to (1,2) and another from (1,2) to (1,1). You drew them in seperate instances. You'd be better off (assuming you can draw over the same line, which I don't think you should be able to do) going from (1,3) to (1,1) then back to (1,2) then right to (4,2).

>was allowed
No where does it say it's not allowed. You'd be right if it was based off the assumption that I was drawing two separate lines but in the end it is just one line as I am merely extending said line.

OP here. You can't backtrack over your own lines. I don't care if it's in the rules or not, this isn't fucking /b/ the goal of this thread is not to cleverly avoid breaking the rules. The goal of this thread is to prove this isn't possible.
This person is actually attempting to do what I asked. Now how can we show that this configuration of dots will ALWAYS result in two vertices of odd degree?

You're right but I think the person who made this meant to write that it's not allowed. And I think the natural assumption is that you can't extend lines and consider them to still be the same line. Otherwise, you could argue that each line you draw, even if they change direction, are the same line, in which case you've basically solved it in one line. Or you could argue that lines are made of infinitely many infinitesimal points, in which case you could solve it using zero lines.

A line in this case is the time from when you put the pencil on the paper and start drawing a straight line segment, to the time when you have to stop to change direction.

>tfw you solved it and are too smart to share it with brainlets

write a program to brute force all the possible paths (there are 12*11*10*9*8 = 95,040 of them so this is easy)

How do you know those are all the possible paths?

>iktf

for big enough dots and with enough paper, you can solve this with 4 straight lines

with a big enough pencil, you can solve this with one straight line

If you have scrissors you can do a single straight cut that will take all the dots on the paper

Clever. Although this really only works in projective space.

Because you have to end up where you started I don't believe its possible unless the points are actually small circles rather than points in which case there is near infinite solutions that look like

>not understanding the dots are points

How's calc I going, brainlet

>brainlets will say its fake

Isn't this the simplest solution? Or am I reading wrong.

You have to end where you started

It doesn't say that anywhere though, it just says to connect the dots.

This is some pretty tasty bait.

Got it

cool

>end up where you started

get rekt son

Oh shit. Nice!

you can put it upside down and there is another solution

You never said I couldn't cross the lines.

Basically the same thing but this time with no crossing lines.

this is against the spirit of the problem, imo

it is an unspoken assumption in math the dots and lines do not have finite finite thickness

I did exactly what was asked of me by the image.

no you didn't because you didn't draw the lines with a pencil :^)

Holy shit this is actually a solution

counter example

winner

not a solution. we are assuming dots are infinitely small so you must go thru the CENTER of each dot

>we

I have connected the dots. Nowhere in the text is it stated that I must treat each dot as a point.

this is only true, if you're only allowed to turn at the points.

It's on a whiteboard dumbfucks. A pencil on a whiteboard.... Heyzues

thats correct. it should also be solvablr in less lines, if you drop the assumption of euklydian geometry.

I see no problem with rubbing graphite on a while lacquer surface.

there, did it in 2.

How are you reading Veeky Forums if you are blind?

Lol dude, don't get so triggered. Just accept the fact that you solved a problem nobody cares about.

>hurr look guys, I solved a different problem, look how smart I am

...

>end up where you started

?

you have to end up where you started

si deve finire dove si è partiti

Tienes que terminar donde empezaste

вы дoлжны в кoнeчнoм итoгe, гдe вы нaчaли

Vous devez finir là où vous avez commencé

Imagine all those points are in a flat plane like say a piece of paper. And lets say that the top left point is at the top left edge of the paper and the bottom right point is at the bottom right edge of the paper.

Then fold the paper, curving it, so that the top left point touches the bottom right point.

Now the solution is correct, just in a different space ;^)

Show me where it says that.

Read the fucking OP ya dingus

I don't care about the OP.

>posts in thread
>does not care about what the thread is about

This is the single most autistic defense I've ever heard.

>Hey, why are you acting retarded?
>I'm not retarded!
>But look at the conversation we are having. What you said makes no sense in this context
>OH I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE CONVERSATION HAPPENING LOL
>Then why did you join the conversation?
>Uhgghh ughghghghg

y= 0
y = -x + 2
y = x-1
y = -.5 + 2.5
y = .5x + 1

If anyone wants to test. Nice job

ez

fixed

Autismo

>he didnt fold the paper so he didnt have to lift his pencil

Is this something to do with nodes?

>different problem

Dot != point no matter how much you sperg out over it.

>straight lines

Yall forgetting something

...

nice

wowie

nice

KEK!

What's possible with SIX lines?

I meant that there's a dot in the sentence :^)

>not doing it in 4 strokes

>replying to yourself