NationStates Jolt Archive

Fairly straightforward, no real traps or paradoxes here, I just found it a moderately entertaining exercise.

Three people have to travel 30 miles. They have one bicycle, which can only carry one person at a time. The bicycle travels at 10 miles an hour, and the people travel at 5 miles an hour. The three people all want to get to their destination as soon as possible in order to carry out a task that requires all of them to present.

What is the most efficient way to get all three people over the distance as quickly as possible, who gets to the destination first, and how much time does having a bicycle save them?

It takes 5 hours and they all get there at the same time. 10 miles each on the bicycle, 20 miles each walking.

It takes 5 hours and they all get there at the same time. 10 miles each on the bicycle, 20 miles each walking. Provided the bike can be safely left by the side of the path.

Yeah five hours.

Person one bikes 10 miles in an hour and then leaves the bike and walks 4 hours/20 miles to get to the end.

Person two walks 10 miles in 2 hours, bikes for an hour/10 miles and leaves the bike before walking to the end in another 2 hours.

Person three walks for 4 hours or the first 20 miles, collects the bike and bikes to the end in an hour arriving at the same time as the other 2.

Provided the bike can be safely left by the side of the path.

Heh, the plan fails when the bike gets knicked after the first ten miles..

It takes 5 hours and they all get there at the same time. 10 miles each on the bicycle, 20 miles each walking.

Correct, and thus the principles behind communism are seen to be triumphant.

Correct, and thus the principles behind communism are seen to be triumphant.

You just have got to love that conclusion :p

Correct, and thus the principles behind communism are seen to be triumphant.

This assumes that all systems result in three people having to share one bicycle, whereas under capitalism, all three would have cars, or motorbikes, and finish the task while the communists were still walking down the road. Thus the inefficiency of communism.

This assumes that all systems result in three people having to share one bicycle, whereas under capitalism, all three would have cars, or motorbikes, and finish the task while the communists were still walking down the road. Thus the inefficiency of communism.

Veering hideously off the original topic... under capitalism one third of the people would be westerners with cars, on third would be from semi-industrialised countries and possess bicycles, while the final third would be from less developed countries and rely on shank's pony for transport.

This assumes that all systems result in three people having to share one bicycle, whereas under capitalism, all three would have cars, or motorbikes, and finish the task while the communists were still walking down the road. Thus the inefficiency of communism.

aha! but this is in a non-economical world. economy is about how to use scarce resources to fullfill as many of our 'almost infinite' needs. We live in a scarce world, hence they only have 1 bike.

Veering hideously off the original topic... under capitalism one third of the people would be westerners with cars, on third would be from semi-industrialised countries and possess bicycles, while the final third would be from less developed countries and rely on shank's pony for transport.

So the one with the car gives a lift to the other two. No problem there. It still gets done, while the communists are looking for the stolen bicycle.

This assumes that all systems result in three people having to share one bicycle, whereas under capitalism, all three would have cars, or motorbikes, and finish the task while the communists were still walking down the road. Thus the inefficiency of communism.

I live in a capitalist society and don't have a car or a motorbike. Your blanket assumption that capitalism = cars for all is incorrect.

(yes. it's a joke. :D But true nonetheless. I just refuse to allow this thread to suddenly become serious on my part.)

I live in a capitalist society and don't have a car or a motorbike. Your blanket assumption that capitalism = cars for all is incorrect.

(yes. it's a joke. :D But true nonetheless. I just refuse to allow this thread to suddenly become serious on my part.)

OK, so take a taxi then, or a bus, or whatever transport service is available. But beware the three communists on the road looking for a lost bicycle OK. ;)

So the one with the car gives a lift to the other two. No problem there. It still gets done, while the communists are looking for the stolen bicycle.

Western capitalists are not famed for sharing their resources with those in other nations. They are more likely to set up aid projects in order to ripen such countries for increased industrialisation and the opportunity to extend their businesses overseas.

Western capitalists are not famed for sharing their resources with those in other nations. They are more likely to set up aid projects in order to ripen such countries for increased industrialisation and the opportunity to extend their businesses overseas.

So criticise the people, not the system. I still prefer to take my chance on getting a lift rather than walk four hours only to have to search for a lost bicycle ;)

So the one with the car gives a lift to the other two. No problem there. It still gets done, while the communists are looking for the stolen bicycle.

Aha! But this is against capitalistic ideas! The owner of the car would expect the poor (at least too poor to own a car) others to pay for the ride. Free riders don't exist in capitalism. You just explained what communists would do with a car.

sell the bike, buy 3 scooters which travel say 7mph and they get there in just over 4 hours

sell the bike, buy 3 scooters which travel say 7mph and they get there in just over 4 hours

But they lose 2 hours spending the money left over from the bikesale in a bar ...

But they lose 2 hours spending the money left over from the bikesale in a bar ...
so whats the problem? :D