How many hands?

[Claudya]

My daughter made this diagram to show how we came to this conclusion.

That's awesome!

 

[Classik]

Awesome! Yes! Crestfallen?:dunno

 

[reba]

Shouldn't this be in the science forum?

 

[Deborah13]

Well darn. To a hunter Nearly doesn't count!!

 

[Classik]

Shouldn't this be in the science forum?

Is that really a complex problem that requires ODElised calculus and scientific method? Maybe we should move it to Windows 8 forum;) Give us your own answer, O Mother:D

 

[Classik]

Well darn. To a hunter Nearly doesn't count!!

As 'nearly' doesn't kill a rat;)

 

[Obadiah]

My daughter made this diagram to show how we came to this conclusion.

So that begs the question: If you assume the smallest hands you are using in your calculation (the ones designated by red that you have 125 of) are actually hands even though you can not see anything more than oval shaped pads in the picture, why do you stop the assumption at that point? Why not assume the oval shaped pads which you calculate as hands also continue the trend and have more hands on the tips of their fingers, and continue the trend into infinity? What is the logical reason for stopping the trend right after those pads are assumed to be hands?

 

[Mike]

Classik, you better have proof of a valid answer. Unless there are parallel universes involved, I'm going with 36. If there are hands where the tiny dots are, then this test is unfair. We don't have the CIA's digital enhancement.

 

[Classik]

Classik, you better have proof of a valid answer. Unless there are parallel universes involved, I'm going with 36. If there are hands where the tiny dots are, then this test is unfair. We don't have the CIA's digital enhancement.

 

[Claudya]

So that begs the question: If you assume the smallest hands you are using in your calculation (the ones designated by red that you have 125 of) are actually hands even though you can not see anything more than oval shaped pads in the picture, why do you stop the assumption at that point? Why not assume the oval shaped pads which you calculate as hands also continue the trend and have more hands on the tips of their fingers, and continue the trend into infinity? What is the logical reason for stopping the trend right after those pads are assumed to be hands?

In that picture we can assume that when the size of any further tier of hands is equal to (or would be smaller than) one pixel there are no more hands possible given the "reality" of the image. So that would limit the number of hands.
In any case, my answer (the sum function) is superior to any other, because it's true for any number of tiers, including the case of n = ∞. :yes ;) *pats self on back*

 

[for_his_glory]

I say 156 hands can be seen in this picture unless like Obadiah says about the resolution.

 

[Obadiah]

I must be looking at a low resolution version of the picture because the tiniest "hands" (of which there would be 125) don't show as hands at all. No matter how much I zoom in, they only show as small, highly pixelated oval pads with no hint of fingers. I'm with Mike, I don't have that CIA style image software and am anxiously waiting for Classik to tell us what the right answer is and why it's right.

 

[for_his_glory]

Classik, is this an assumption test, that we are assuming something that is not there.

 

[Deborah13]

So that begs the question: If you assume the smallest hands you are using in your calculation (the ones designated by red that you have 125 of) are actually hands even though you can not see anything more than oval shaped pads in the picture, why do you stop the assumption at that point? Why not assume the oval shaped pads which you calculate as hands also continue the trend and have more hands on the tips of their fingers, and continue the trend into infinity? What is the logical reason for stopping the trend right after those pads are assumed to be hands?

This person, me, is an accountant but does not do well with advanced math. I think that would be Ms C above. But I'll take a stab at something like 5X infinity + 1.

 

[Classik]

Someone should get the answer correct and get my new year award (gift). Infinity? Think again.

 

[for_his_glory]

OK, it's one hand with many extensions that reach out to infinity.
Analogy possibly being how God has extended his hand to everyone as in many hands to hold all that are His. :dunno

 

[Obadiah]

Are we ever going to get the answer?

 

[Classik]

If I had used this then some of your answers would be right. Hiwever, the pic in the op is a little different...how many steps more??? Figure it out:

 

[for_his_glory]

in the first pick I see 256 hands if you include the little nubs at the end of the smallest fingers. Now in this pic I see 31, but yet one hand with many extensions.

 

[Classik]

And the asnwer is...