Why is this Simple Puzzle impossible to solve?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







32












$begingroup$


Connect each red circle with each black circle by drawing a line and the lines should not touch.

From each red circle, 3 lines must be drawn which connect red circles with black circles, but the lines must not touch.



enter image description here



I am 32 years old now. When I was in 4th class, a friend of mine challenged me to solve this problem and I still can't solve it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
    $endgroup$
    – Mitchel Paulin
    May 27 at 15:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:56


















32












$begingroup$


Connect each red circle with each black circle by drawing a line and the lines should not touch.

From each red circle, 3 lines must be drawn which connect red circles with black circles, but the lines must not touch.



enter image description here



I am 32 years old now. When I was in 4th class, a friend of mine challenged me to solve this problem and I still can't solve it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
    $endgroup$
    – Mitchel Paulin
    May 27 at 15:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:56














32












32








32


8



$begingroup$


Connect each red circle with each black circle by drawing a line and the lines should not touch.

From each red circle, 3 lines must be drawn which connect red circles with black circles, but the lines must not touch.



enter image description here



I am 32 years old now. When I was in 4th class, a friend of mine challenged me to solve this problem and I still can't solve it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Connect each red circle with each black circle by drawing a line and the lines should not touch.

From each red circle, 3 lines must be drawn which connect red circles with black circles, but the lines must not touch.



enter image description here



I am 32 years old now. When I was in 4th class, a friend of mine challenged me to solve this problem and I still can't solve it.







mathematics visual






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 24 at 12:54









Rand al'Thor

74.8k15 gold badges248 silver badges496 bronze badges




74.8k15 gold badges248 silver badges496 bronze badges










asked May 24 at 11:38









Navid2132Navid2132

1632 silver badges5 bronze badges




1632 silver badges5 bronze badges











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
    $endgroup$
    – Mitchel Paulin
    May 27 at 15:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:56














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
    $endgroup$
    – Mitchel Paulin
    May 27 at 15:13






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
    $endgroup$
    – Rubio
    May 30 at 0:56








1




1




$begingroup$
In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
$endgroup$
– Mitchel Paulin
May 27 at 15:13




$begingroup$
In graph theory speak this is impossible because the graph K 3,3 is non-planar
$endgroup$
– Mitchel Paulin
May 27 at 15:13




1




1




$begingroup$
See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
$endgroup$
– Rubio
May 30 at 0:52




$begingroup$
See also: Connect 3 houses with 3 wells
$endgroup$
– Rubio
May 30 at 0:52




1




1




$begingroup$
(Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
$endgroup$
– Rubio
May 30 at 0:56




$begingroup$
(Note that the question here isn't "How to solve this" - the title makes it clear the question is, Why is it not possible (otherwise, this would be a dup of the question I just linked, and would be closed as such). Answers that proffer a solution, rather than address why this is not possible, are not answering the question asked and are subject to deletion.)
$endgroup$
– Rubio
May 30 at 0:56










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















39












$begingroup$

This is a famous problem called the Three utilities problem, which is part of the mathematical field of graph theory. The problem basically asks for a planar embedding of the utility graph, which does not exist.



While it's not exactly know when the puzzle was invented, it was published at least as far back as 1913 and it took mathematicians until 1930 to solve it. That means it's rather difficult to prove why the puzzle is impossible to solve; it requires some advanced mathematics to do so, beyond the scope of almost all readers here. This is again a case of "it's hard to prove a negative".



Simply put, there are just too many lines which need to be drawn and too few points. This is just a 'fact' of two-dimensional mathematics, just like the icosahedron being the largest (three dimensional) polyhedron.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
    $endgroup$
    – hexomino
    May 24 at 12:46








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
    $endgroup$
    – user2357112
    May 25 at 3:33






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
    $endgroup$
    – Euro Micelli
    May 25 at 23:01








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
    $endgroup$
    – Moo-Juice
    May 27 at 11:40






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
    $endgroup$
    – ppgdev
    May 28 at 4:00





















17












$begingroup$

This is a problem I've thought about quite a bit too and here is my "proof" for why it cannot be done




For convenience, let us label the black circles $B_1, B_2, B_3$ and the red circles $R_1, R_2, R_3$.
Suppose there exists a way to connect all the circles as specified. Then the circles $B_1, R_1, B_2, R_2$ form a closed loop in the plane.
Since the circle $B_3$ and $R_3$ must be connected to each other, they must be both inside the loop or both outside the loop.

Both inside
The interiors of the loops formed by sequences of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ and $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ are disjoint regions whose union is the interior of the original loop. The circle $R_3$ must lie inside one of these loops. If it is inside the first loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_2$ which is outside the first loop. If it is inside the second loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_1$ which is outside the second loop. This is a contradiction.

Both outside
In this case, either the sequence of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ or $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ forms a loop whose finite interior is disjoint from that of the original. Without loss of generality, suppose it is the former. Then $R_3$ must be within this loop or outside of it. If it is within the loop, then there is not way to connect it to $B_2$, which is outside the loop. If it is outside this loop, there is not way to connect it to $B_1$ which is within the larger loop formed by $B_3, R_1, B_2, R_2$. Hence another contradiction.




Further reading




This is a corollary of Kuratowksi's Theorem and is an example of what they call a $K_{3,3}$ graph.







share|improve this answer









$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    so its not possible?
    $endgroup$
    – Navid2132
    May 24 at 12:05










  • $begingroup$
    @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
    $endgroup$
    – hexomino
    May 24 at 12:08






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
    $endgroup$
    – Domosed
    May 24 at 17:00



















5












$begingroup$

It has to do with graph theory and non-planar graphs.



If (and only if) a graph is planar, you can draw it on a flat piece of paper without the lines ever crossing.



On the other hand, Kuratowski's theorem states that a finite graph is planar if (and only if) it doesn't contain the K5 graph or the K3,3 graph in any form.



The K5 graph is the completely connected graph with 5 nodes. The K3,3 graph is the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on either side, which is also known as "the utility graph" because of this very puzzle. (It's usually given in the form of connecting utilities to houses.)



So this puzzle asks you to draw one of the two "archetypal" non-planar graphs, and therefore it's impossible to solve it on a flat piece of paper. Which is why some silly guys "fixed" the puzzle by printing it on a mug. :-)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
    $endgroup$
    – Arnaud Mortier
    May 24 at 22:57



















4












$begingroup$

While hexomino's answer gives a very nice proof from geometric principles, there is a somewhat fast way to see this: simply put, this is impossible because there are too many lines to draw. Especially for mathematicians already familiar with some graph theory, this can serve as a very fast way to solve the problem, but I will expand the theory to, as much as possible, be accessible to all.





This fact follows from something called the "Euler characteristic." Basically, suppose you create a figure obeying the following rules:




  1. You draw some set of points called vertices.


  2. You draw a set of curves called edges, each of which begins and ends at a vertex and does not intersect itself or any other edge.


  3. No pair of edges connect the same pair of vertices.


  4. It is possible to get from any vertex to any other vertex by following some series of edges.



Such a figure is called a connected planar graph. You'll note that such a graph determines a set of faces, which are just the regions cut out by the edges - including one face representing "the outside". If you let $V$ be the number of vertices and $E$ be the number of edges and $F$ be the number of faces, you have the following relation:
$$V-E+F=2$$
I won't go into the proof because, while it's straightforward, it's hard to phrase without mathematical jargon - you can try it out, though! Draw any figure according to these rules and this relation will hold. (This is also a standard fact, subject to proofs in standard sources, such as those that appear via Google)



Another property sometimes called the faceshake lemma is that, if you define the degree of a face to be the number of edges bordering the face, then the sum of the degrees of the faces is twice the number of edges, since each edge borders exactly two faces. Note that the edges on the boundary of any face form a cycle - that is, if you traverse them, you end up back where you started. Since the shortest cycle in the desired graph has length $4$, every face would have to have at least four edges around it; this means we have the relation
$$4Fleq 2E$$
since the sum of the degrees of the faces is at least $4F$.



Now, we put things together: we are supposed to draw a graph with $6$ vertices and $9$ edges. There must be no more than $4$ faces, for the faceshake lemma to hold. However, $6-9+F$ is supposed to equal $2$, which means that $F$ should equal $5$. This is a problem because $5>4$ - so there is no way to do it!






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$























    2












    $begingroup$

    Simple proof of impossibility:




    Draw the six lines connecting two black circles to all three red circles.
    This divides the plane into three four-sided "faces", with two black and two red circles on each face.
    Regardless of where you place the third black circle, it cannot reach the red circle not sharing its face, Q.E.D.
    Diagram







    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$















    • $begingroup$
      I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
      $endgroup$
      – Peregrine Rook
      Jun 18 at 4:12










    • $begingroup$
      Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
      $endgroup$
      – Peregrine Rook
      Jun 21 at 1:07



















    0












    $begingroup$

    The problem can be reduced to the following scenario:




    utility




    where:




    both green vertices need to be connected to both red vertices, but the edges cannot enter the grey area. This can be seen be a straight-forward connection in the original problem of A1, A2, A3, B3, and C3, which leaves B1, B2, C1 and C2 left, as in the above graph.







    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "559"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84316%2fwhy-is-this-simple-puzzle-impossible-to-solve%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      39












      $begingroup$

      This is a famous problem called the Three utilities problem, which is part of the mathematical field of graph theory. The problem basically asks for a planar embedding of the utility graph, which does not exist.



      While it's not exactly know when the puzzle was invented, it was published at least as far back as 1913 and it took mathematicians until 1930 to solve it. That means it's rather difficult to prove why the puzzle is impossible to solve; it requires some advanced mathematics to do so, beyond the scope of almost all readers here. This is again a case of "it's hard to prove a negative".



      Simply put, there are just too many lines which need to be drawn and too few points. This is just a 'fact' of two-dimensional mathematics, just like the icosahedron being the largest (three dimensional) polyhedron.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$











      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:46








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        May 25 at 3:33






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
        $endgroup$
        – Euro Micelli
        May 25 at 23:01








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
        $endgroup$
        – Moo-Juice
        May 27 at 11:40






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
        $endgroup$
        – ppgdev
        May 28 at 4:00


















      39












      $begingroup$

      This is a famous problem called the Three utilities problem, which is part of the mathematical field of graph theory. The problem basically asks for a planar embedding of the utility graph, which does not exist.



      While it's not exactly know when the puzzle was invented, it was published at least as far back as 1913 and it took mathematicians until 1930 to solve it. That means it's rather difficult to prove why the puzzle is impossible to solve; it requires some advanced mathematics to do so, beyond the scope of almost all readers here. This is again a case of "it's hard to prove a negative".



      Simply put, there are just too many lines which need to be drawn and too few points. This is just a 'fact' of two-dimensional mathematics, just like the icosahedron being the largest (three dimensional) polyhedron.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$











      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:46








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        May 25 at 3:33






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
        $endgroup$
        – Euro Micelli
        May 25 at 23:01








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
        $endgroup$
        – Moo-Juice
        May 27 at 11:40






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
        $endgroup$
        – ppgdev
        May 28 at 4:00
















      39












      39








      39





      $begingroup$

      This is a famous problem called the Three utilities problem, which is part of the mathematical field of graph theory. The problem basically asks for a planar embedding of the utility graph, which does not exist.



      While it's not exactly know when the puzzle was invented, it was published at least as far back as 1913 and it took mathematicians until 1930 to solve it. That means it's rather difficult to prove why the puzzle is impossible to solve; it requires some advanced mathematics to do so, beyond the scope of almost all readers here. This is again a case of "it's hard to prove a negative".



      Simply put, there are just too many lines which need to be drawn and too few points. This is just a 'fact' of two-dimensional mathematics, just like the icosahedron being the largest (three dimensional) polyhedron.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      This is a famous problem called the Three utilities problem, which is part of the mathematical field of graph theory. The problem basically asks for a planar embedding of the utility graph, which does not exist.



      While it's not exactly know when the puzzle was invented, it was published at least as far back as 1913 and it took mathematicians until 1930 to solve it. That means it's rather difficult to prove why the puzzle is impossible to solve; it requires some advanced mathematics to do so, beyond the scope of almost all readers here. This is again a case of "it's hard to prove a negative".



      Simply put, there are just too many lines which need to be drawn and too few points. This is just a 'fact' of two-dimensional mathematics, just like the icosahedron being the largest (three dimensional) polyhedron.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered May 24 at 12:23









      GlorfindelGlorfindel

      17.4k4 gold badges64 silver badges98 bronze badges




      17.4k4 gold badges64 silver badges98 bronze badges











      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:46








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        May 25 at 3:33






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
        $endgroup$
        – Euro Micelli
        May 25 at 23:01








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
        $endgroup$
        – Moo-Juice
        May 27 at 11:40






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
        $endgroup$
        – ppgdev
        May 28 at 4:00
















      • 1




        $begingroup$
        I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:46








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
        $endgroup$
        – user2357112
        May 25 at 3:33






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
        $endgroup$
        – Euro Micelli
        May 25 at 23:01








      • 2




        $begingroup$
        @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
        $endgroup$
        – Moo-Juice
        May 27 at 11:40






      • 4




        $begingroup$
        @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
        $endgroup$
        – ppgdev
        May 28 at 4:00










      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
      $endgroup$
      – hexomino
      May 24 at 12:46






      $begingroup$
      I would say it is not too difficult to prove once you can assume the Jordan curve theorem. I've essentially outlined the argument in my answer which I think is what they are referring to here
      $endgroup$
      – hexomino
      May 24 at 12:46






      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
      $endgroup$
      – user2357112
      May 25 at 3:33




      $begingroup$
      Proving that $K_{3,3}$ is nonplanar isn't that hard. Even without the Jordan curve theorem, the Wikipedia page on the three utilities problem includes a short proof based on Euler's formula for planar graphs.
      $endgroup$
      – user2357112
      May 25 at 3:33




      4




      4




      $begingroup$
      @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
      $endgroup$
      – Euro Micelli
      May 25 at 23:01






      $begingroup$
      @Gnudiff, not a cylinder. You need a torus like this one. (no financial interest)
      $endgroup$
      – Euro Micelli
      May 25 at 23:01






      2




      2




      $begingroup$
      @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
      $endgroup$
      – Moo-Juice
      May 27 at 11:40




      $begingroup$
      @Gnudiff this puzzle is entirely solveable when drawn on, say, an orange :)
      $endgroup$
      – Moo-Juice
      May 27 at 11:40




      4




      4




      $begingroup$
      @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
      $endgroup$
      – ppgdev
      May 28 at 4:00






      $begingroup$
      @Moo-Juice, you cannot solve this puzzle on the surface of a sphere. If you were able to do it, you could then select a point on the sphere not covered by your drawing, use the point to make a hole in the sphere and then continuously transform the sphere into a plane. Now you sphere solution would turn into a plane solution. But we already know that plane solution does not exist. Contradiction. Q.E.D.
      $endgroup$
      – ppgdev
      May 28 at 4:00















      17












      $begingroup$

      This is a problem I've thought about quite a bit too and here is my "proof" for why it cannot be done




      For convenience, let us label the black circles $B_1, B_2, B_3$ and the red circles $R_1, R_2, R_3$.
      Suppose there exists a way to connect all the circles as specified. Then the circles $B_1, R_1, B_2, R_2$ form a closed loop in the plane.
      Since the circle $B_3$ and $R_3$ must be connected to each other, they must be both inside the loop or both outside the loop.

      Both inside
      The interiors of the loops formed by sequences of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ and $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ are disjoint regions whose union is the interior of the original loop. The circle $R_3$ must lie inside one of these loops. If it is inside the first loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_2$ which is outside the first loop. If it is inside the second loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_1$ which is outside the second loop. This is a contradiction.

      Both outside
      In this case, either the sequence of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ or $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ forms a loop whose finite interior is disjoint from that of the original. Without loss of generality, suppose it is the former. Then $R_3$ must be within this loop or outside of it. If it is within the loop, then there is not way to connect it to $B_2$, which is outside the loop. If it is outside this loop, there is not way to connect it to $B_1$ which is within the larger loop formed by $B_3, R_1, B_2, R_2$. Hence another contradiction.




      Further reading




      This is a corollary of Kuratowksi's Theorem and is an example of what they call a $K_{3,3}$ graph.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        so its not possible?
        $endgroup$
        – Navid2132
        May 24 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:08






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
        $endgroup$
        – Domosed
        May 24 at 17:00
















      17












      $begingroup$

      This is a problem I've thought about quite a bit too and here is my "proof" for why it cannot be done




      For convenience, let us label the black circles $B_1, B_2, B_3$ and the red circles $R_1, R_2, R_3$.
      Suppose there exists a way to connect all the circles as specified. Then the circles $B_1, R_1, B_2, R_2$ form a closed loop in the plane.
      Since the circle $B_3$ and $R_3$ must be connected to each other, they must be both inside the loop or both outside the loop.

      Both inside
      The interiors of the loops formed by sequences of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ and $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ are disjoint regions whose union is the interior of the original loop. The circle $R_3$ must lie inside one of these loops. If it is inside the first loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_2$ which is outside the first loop. If it is inside the second loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_1$ which is outside the second loop. This is a contradiction.

      Both outside
      In this case, either the sequence of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ or $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ forms a loop whose finite interior is disjoint from that of the original. Without loss of generality, suppose it is the former. Then $R_3$ must be within this loop or outside of it. If it is within the loop, then there is not way to connect it to $B_2$, which is outside the loop. If it is outside this loop, there is not way to connect it to $B_1$ which is within the larger loop formed by $B_3, R_1, B_2, R_2$. Hence another contradiction.




      Further reading




      This is a corollary of Kuratowksi's Theorem and is an example of what they call a $K_{3,3}$ graph.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        so its not possible?
        $endgroup$
        – Navid2132
        May 24 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:08






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
        $endgroup$
        – Domosed
        May 24 at 17:00














      17












      17








      17





      $begingroup$

      This is a problem I've thought about quite a bit too and here is my "proof" for why it cannot be done




      For convenience, let us label the black circles $B_1, B_2, B_3$ and the red circles $R_1, R_2, R_3$.
      Suppose there exists a way to connect all the circles as specified. Then the circles $B_1, R_1, B_2, R_2$ form a closed loop in the plane.
      Since the circle $B_3$ and $R_3$ must be connected to each other, they must be both inside the loop or both outside the loop.

      Both inside
      The interiors of the loops formed by sequences of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ and $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ are disjoint regions whose union is the interior of the original loop. The circle $R_3$ must lie inside one of these loops. If it is inside the first loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_2$ which is outside the first loop. If it is inside the second loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_1$ which is outside the second loop. This is a contradiction.

      Both outside
      In this case, either the sequence of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ or $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ forms a loop whose finite interior is disjoint from that of the original. Without loss of generality, suppose it is the former. Then $R_3$ must be within this loop or outside of it. If it is within the loop, then there is not way to connect it to $B_2$, which is outside the loop. If it is outside this loop, there is not way to connect it to $B_1$ which is within the larger loop formed by $B_3, R_1, B_2, R_2$. Hence another contradiction.




      Further reading




      This is a corollary of Kuratowksi's Theorem and is an example of what they call a $K_{3,3}$ graph.







      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      This is a problem I've thought about quite a bit too and here is my "proof" for why it cannot be done




      For convenience, let us label the black circles $B_1, B_2, B_3$ and the red circles $R_1, R_2, R_3$.
      Suppose there exists a way to connect all the circles as specified. Then the circles $B_1, R_1, B_2, R_2$ form a closed loop in the plane.
      Since the circle $B_3$ and $R_3$ must be connected to each other, they must be both inside the loop or both outside the loop.

      Both inside
      The interiors of the loops formed by sequences of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ and $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ are disjoint regions whose union is the interior of the original loop. The circle $R_3$ must lie inside one of these loops. If it is inside the first loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_2$ which is outside the first loop. If it is inside the second loop, there is no way to connect it to $B_1$ which is outside the second loop. This is a contradiction.

      Both outside
      In this case, either the sequence of circles $B_1, R_1, B_3, R_2$ or $B_2, R_2, B_3, R_1$ forms a loop whose finite interior is disjoint from that of the original. Without loss of generality, suppose it is the former. Then $R_3$ must be within this loop or outside of it. If it is within the loop, then there is not way to connect it to $B_2$, which is outside the loop. If it is outside this loop, there is not way to connect it to $B_1$ which is within the larger loop formed by $B_3, R_1, B_2, R_2$. Hence another contradiction.




      Further reading




      This is a corollary of Kuratowksi's Theorem and is an example of what they call a $K_{3,3}$ graph.








      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered May 24 at 12:04









      hexominohexomino

      58.6k5 gold badges170 silver badges268 bronze badges




      58.6k5 gold badges170 silver badges268 bronze badges















      • $begingroup$
        so its not possible?
        $endgroup$
        – Navid2132
        May 24 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:08






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
        $endgroup$
        – Domosed
        May 24 at 17:00


















      • $begingroup$
        so its not possible?
        $endgroup$
        – Navid2132
        May 24 at 12:05










      • $begingroup$
        @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
        $endgroup$
        – hexomino
        May 24 at 12:08






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
        $endgroup$
        – Domosed
        May 24 at 17:00
















      $begingroup$
      so its not possible?
      $endgroup$
      – Navid2132
      May 24 at 12:05




      $begingroup$
      so its not possible?
      $endgroup$
      – Navid2132
      May 24 at 12:05












      $begingroup$
      @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
      $endgroup$
      – hexomino
      May 24 at 12:08




      $begingroup$
      @Navid2132 Yes, unless you do something clever like suggested in Tahel's answer. But just as a planar problem, impossible to solve.
      $endgroup$
      – hexomino
      May 24 at 12:08




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
      $endgroup$
      – Domosed
      May 24 at 17:00




      $begingroup$
      @hexomino, nice proof! +1!
      $endgroup$
      – Domosed
      May 24 at 17:00











      5












      $begingroup$

      It has to do with graph theory and non-planar graphs.



      If (and only if) a graph is planar, you can draw it on a flat piece of paper without the lines ever crossing.



      On the other hand, Kuratowski's theorem states that a finite graph is planar if (and only if) it doesn't contain the K5 graph or the K3,3 graph in any form.



      The K5 graph is the completely connected graph with 5 nodes. The K3,3 graph is the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on either side, which is also known as "the utility graph" because of this very puzzle. (It's usually given in the form of connecting utilities to houses.)



      So this puzzle asks you to draw one of the two "archetypal" non-planar graphs, and therefore it's impossible to solve it on a flat piece of paper. Which is why some silly guys "fixed" the puzzle by printing it on a mug. :-)






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
        $endgroup$
        – Arnaud Mortier
        May 24 at 22:57
















      5












      $begingroup$

      It has to do with graph theory and non-planar graphs.



      If (and only if) a graph is planar, you can draw it on a flat piece of paper without the lines ever crossing.



      On the other hand, Kuratowski's theorem states that a finite graph is planar if (and only if) it doesn't contain the K5 graph or the K3,3 graph in any form.



      The K5 graph is the completely connected graph with 5 nodes. The K3,3 graph is the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on either side, which is also known as "the utility graph" because of this very puzzle. (It's usually given in the form of connecting utilities to houses.)



      So this puzzle asks you to draw one of the two "archetypal" non-planar graphs, and therefore it's impossible to solve it on a flat piece of paper. Which is why some silly guys "fixed" the puzzle by printing it on a mug. :-)






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
        $endgroup$
        – Arnaud Mortier
        May 24 at 22:57














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$

      It has to do with graph theory and non-planar graphs.



      If (and only if) a graph is planar, you can draw it on a flat piece of paper without the lines ever crossing.



      On the other hand, Kuratowski's theorem states that a finite graph is planar if (and only if) it doesn't contain the K5 graph or the K3,3 graph in any form.



      The K5 graph is the completely connected graph with 5 nodes. The K3,3 graph is the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on either side, which is also known as "the utility graph" because of this very puzzle. (It's usually given in the form of connecting utilities to houses.)



      So this puzzle asks you to draw one of the two "archetypal" non-planar graphs, and therefore it's impossible to solve it on a flat piece of paper. Which is why some silly guys "fixed" the puzzle by printing it on a mug. :-)






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      It has to do with graph theory and non-planar graphs.



      If (and only if) a graph is planar, you can draw it on a flat piece of paper without the lines ever crossing.



      On the other hand, Kuratowski's theorem states that a finite graph is planar if (and only if) it doesn't contain the K5 graph or the K3,3 graph in any form.



      The K5 graph is the completely connected graph with 5 nodes. The K3,3 graph is the complete bipartite graph with 3 nodes on either side, which is also known as "the utility graph" because of this very puzzle. (It's usually given in the form of connecting utilities to houses.)



      So this puzzle asks you to draw one of the two "archetypal" non-planar graphs, and therefore it's impossible to solve it on a flat piece of paper. Which is why some silly guys "fixed" the puzzle by printing it on a mug. :-)







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered May 24 at 12:32









      BassBass

      35.8k4 gold badges88 silver badges208 bronze badges




      35.8k4 gold badges88 silver badges208 bronze badges















      • $begingroup$
        The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
        $endgroup$
        – Arnaud Mortier
        May 24 at 22:57


















      • $begingroup$
        The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
        $endgroup$
        – Arnaud Mortier
        May 24 at 22:57
















      $begingroup$
      The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
      $endgroup$
      – Arnaud Mortier
      May 24 at 22:57




      $begingroup$
      The "If (and only if)" sentence should be replaced by "a graph is said to be.. " or "a graph is called...". It is good practice to keep words involving causality (in one or both ways) for situations that actually involve theorems and not definitions.
      $endgroup$
      – Arnaud Mortier
      May 24 at 22:57











      4












      $begingroup$

      While hexomino's answer gives a very nice proof from geometric principles, there is a somewhat fast way to see this: simply put, this is impossible because there are too many lines to draw. Especially for mathematicians already familiar with some graph theory, this can serve as a very fast way to solve the problem, but I will expand the theory to, as much as possible, be accessible to all.





      This fact follows from something called the "Euler characteristic." Basically, suppose you create a figure obeying the following rules:




      1. You draw some set of points called vertices.


      2. You draw a set of curves called edges, each of which begins and ends at a vertex and does not intersect itself or any other edge.


      3. No pair of edges connect the same pair of vertices.


      4. It is possible to get from any vertex to any other vertex by following some series of edges.



      Such a figure is called a connected planar graph. You'll note that such a graph determines a set of faces, which are just the regions cut out by the edges - including one face representing "the outside". If you let $V$ be the number of vertices and $E$ be the number of edges and $F$ be the number of faces, you have the following relation:
      $$V-E+F=2$$
      I won't go into the proof because, while it's straightforward, it's hard to phrase without mathematical jargon - you can try it out, though! Draw any figure according to these rules and this relation will hold. (This is also a standard fact, subject to proofs in standard sources, such as those that appear via Google)



      Another property sometimes called the faceshake lemma is that, if you define the degree of a face to be the number of edges bordering the face, then the sum of the degrees of the faces is twice the number of edges, since each edge borders exactly two faces. Note that the edges on the boundary of any face form a cycle - that is, if you traverse them, you end up back where you started. Since the shortest cycle in the desired graph has length $4$, every face would have to have at least four edges around it; this means we have the relation
      $$4Fleq 2E$$
      since the sum of the degrees of the faces is at least $4F$.



      Now, we put things together: we are supposed to draw a graph with $6$ vertices and $9$ edges. There must be no more than $4$ faces, for the faceshake lemma to hold. However, $6-9+F$ is supposed to equal $2$, which means that $F$ should equal $5$. This is a problem because $5>4$ - so there is no way to do it!






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$




















        4












        $begingroup$

        While hexomino's answer gives a very nice proof from geometric principles, there is a somewhat fast way to see this: simply put, this is impossible because there are too many lines to draw. Especially for mathematicians already familiar with some graph theory, this can serve as a very fast way to solve the problem, but I will expand the theory to, as much as possible, be accessible to all.





        This fact follows from something called the "Euler characteristic." Basically, suppose you create a figure obeying the following rules:




        1. You draw some set of points called vertices.


        2. You draw a set of curves called edges, each of which begins and ends at a vertex and does not intersect itself or any other edge.


        3. No pair of edges connect the same pair of vertices.


        4. It is possible to get from any vertex to any other vertex by following some series of edges.



        Such a figure is called a connected planar graph. You'll note that such a graph determines a set of faces, which are just the regions cut out by the edges - including one face representing "the outside". If you let $V$ be the number of vertices and $E$ be the number of edges and $F$ be the number of faces, you have the following relation:
        $$V-E+F=2$$
        I won't go into the proof because, while it's straightforward, it's hard to phrase without mathematical jargon - you can try it out, though! Draw any figure according to these rules and this relation will hold. (This is also a standard fact, subject to proofs in standard sources, such as those that appear via Google)



        Another property sometimes called the faceshake lemma is that, if you define the degree of a face to be the number of edges bordering the face, then the sum of the degrees of the faces is twice the number of edges, since each edge borders exactly two faces. Note that the edges on the boundary of any face form a cycle - that is, if you traverse them, you end up back where you started. Since the shortest cycle in the desired graph has length $4$, every face would have to have at least four edges around it; this means we have the relation
        $$4Fleq 2E$$
        since the sum of the degrees of the faces is at least $4F$.



        Now, we put things together: we are supposed to draw a graph with $6$ vertices and $9$ edges. There must be no more than $4$ faces, for the faceshake lemma to hold. However, $6-9+F$ is supposed to equal $2$, which means that $F$ should equal $5$. This is a problem because $5>4$ - so there is no way to do it!






        share|improve this answer











        $endgroup$


















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          While hexomino's answer gives a very nice proof from geometric principles, there is a somewhat fast way to see this: simply put, this is impossible because there are too many lines to draw. Especially for mathematicians already familiar with some graph theory, this can serve as a very fast way to solve the problem, but I will expand the theory to, as much as possible, be accessible to all.





          This fact follows from something called the "Euler characteristic." Basically, suppose you create a figure obeying the following rules:




          1. You draw some set of points called vertices.


          2. You draw a set of curves called edges, each of which begins and ends at a vertex and does not intersect itself or any other edge.


          3. No pair of edges connect the same pair of vertices.


          4. It is possible to get from any vertex to any other vertex by following some series of edges.



          Such a figure is called a connected planar graph. You'll note that such a graph determines a set of faces, which are just the regions cut out by the edges - including one face representing "the outside". If you let $V$ be the number of vertices and $E$ be the number of edges and $F$ be the number of faces, you have the following relation:
          $$V-E+F=2$$
          I won't go into the proof because, while it's straightforward, it's hard to phrase without mathematical jargon - you can try it out, though! Draw any figure according to these rules and this relation will hold. (This is also a standard fact, subject to proofs in standard sources, such as those that appear via Google)



          Another property sometimes called the faceshake lemma is that, if you define the degree of a face to be the number of edges bordering the face, then the sum of the degrees of the faces is twice the number of edges, since each edge borders exactly two faces. Note that the edges on the boundary of any face form a cycle - that is, if you traverse them, you end up back where you started. Since the shortest cycle in the desired graph has length $4$, every face would have to have at least four edges around it; this means we have the relation
          $$4Fleq 2E$$
          since the sum of the degrees of the faces is at least $4F$.



          Now, we put things together: we are supposed to draw a graph with $6$ vertices and $9$ edges. There must be no more than $4$ faces, for the faceshake lemma to hold. However, $6-9+F$ is supposed to equal $2$, which means that $F$ should equal $5$. This is a problem because $5>4$ - so there is no way to do it!






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          While hexomino's answer gives a very nice proof from geometric principles, there is a somewhat fast way to see this: simply put, this is impossible because there are too many lines to draw. Especially for mathematicians already familiar with some graph theory, this can serve as a very fast way to solve the problem, but I will expand the theory to, as much as possible, be accessible to all.





          This fact follows from something called the "Euler characteristic." Basically, suppose you create a figure obeying the following rules:




          1. You draw some set of points called vertices.


          2. You draw a set of curves called edges, each of which begins and ends at a vertex and does not intersect itself or any other edge.


          3. No pair of edges connect the same pair of vertices.


          4. It is possible to get from any vertex to any other vertex by following some series of edges.



          Such a figure is called a connected planar graph. You'll note that such a graph determines a set of faces, which are just the regions cut out by the edges - including one face representing "the outside". If you let $V$ be the number of vertices and $E$ be the number of edges and $F$ be the number of faces, you have the following relation:
          $$V-E+F=2$$
          I won't go into the proof because, while it's straightforward, it's hard to phrase without mathematical jargon - you can try it out, though! Draw any figure according to these rules and this relation will hold. (This is also a standard fact, subject to proofs in standard sources, such as those that appear via Google)



          Another property sometimes called the faceshake lemma is that, if you define the degree of a face to be the number of edges bordering the face, then the sum of the degrees of the faces is twice the number of edges, since each edge borders exactly two faces. Note that the edges on the boundary of any face form a cycle - that is, if you traverse them, you end up back where you started. Since the shortest cycle in the desired graph has length $4$, every face would have to have at least four edges around it; this means we have the relation
          $$4Fleq 2E$$
          since the sum of the degrees of the faces is at least $4F$.



          Now, we put things together: we are supposed to draw a graph with $6$ vertices and $9$ edges. There must be no more than $4$ faces, for the faceshake lemma to hold. However, $6-9+F$ is supposed to equal $2$, which means that $F$ should equal $5$. This is a problem because $5>4$ - so there is no way to do it!







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited May 27 at 13:54

























          answered May 27 at 4:09









          Milo BrandtMilo Brandt

          5,9192 gold badges22 silver badges52 bronze badges




          5,9192 gold badges22 silver badges52 bronze badges


























              2












              $begingroup$

              Simple proof of impossibility:




              Draw the six lines connecting two black circles to all three red circles.
              This divides the plane into three four-sided "faces", with two black and two red circles on each face.
              Regardless of where you place the third black circle, it cannot reach the red circle not sharing its face, Q.E.D.
              Diagram







              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















              • $begingroup$
                I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 18 at 4:12










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 21 at 1:07
















              2












              $begingroup$

              Simple proof of impossibility:




              Draw the six lines connecting two black circles to all three red circles.
              This divides the plane into three four-sided "faces", with two black and two red circles on each face.
              Regardless of where you place the third black circle, it cannot reach the red circle not sharing its face, Q.E.D.
              Diagram







              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















              • $begingroup$
                I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 18 at 4:12










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 21 at 1:07














              2












              2








              2





              $begingroup$

              Simple proof of impossibility:




              Draw the six lines connecting two black circles to all three red circles.
              This divides the plane into three four-sided "faces", with two black and two red circles on each face.
              Regardless of where you place the third black circle, it cannot reach the red circle not sharing its face, Q.E.D.
              Diagram







              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Simple proof of impossibility:




              Draw the six lines connecting two black circles to all three red circles.
              This divides the plane into three four-sided "faces", with two black and two red circles on each face.
              Regardless of where you place the third black circle, it cannot reach the red circle not sharing its face, Q.E.D.
              Diagram








              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jun 19 at 12:45

























              answered Jun 18 at 1:19









              AxiomaticSystemAxiomaticSystem

              4581 silver badge4 bronze badges




              4581 silver badge4 bronze badges















              • $begingroup$
                I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 18 at 4:12










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 21 at 1:07


















              • $begingroup$
                I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 18 at 4:12










              • $begingroup$
                Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
                $endgroup$
                – Peregrine Rook
                Jun 21 at 1:07
















              $begingroup$
              I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
              $endgroup$
              – Peregrine Rook
              Jun 18 at 4:12




              $begingroup$
              I do not understand this. You could make it a lot clearer by adding some illustrations.  Of course you run the risk that, once your answer becomes comprehensible, it will be revealed to be a duplicate of one of the ones already given.
              $endgroup$
              – Peregrine Rook
              Jun 18 at 4:12












              $begingroup$
              Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
              $endgroup$
              – Peregrine Rook
              Jun 21 at 1:07




              $begingroup$
              Thanks for the clarification.  Your answer is similar to hexomino’s answer, but it is a slightly different way of looking at it.
              $endgroup$
              – Peregrine Rook
              Jun 21 at 1:07











              0












              $begingroup$

              The problem can be reduced to the following scenario:




              utility




              where:




              both green vertices need to be connected to both red vertices, but the edges cannot enter the grey area. This can be seen be a straight-forward connection in the original problem of A1, A2, A3, B3, and C3, which leaves B1, B2, C1 and C2 left, as in the above graph.







              share|improve this answer









              $endgroup$




















                0












                $begingroup$

                The problem can be reduced to the following scenario:




                utility




                where:




                both green vertices need to be connected to both red vertices, but the edges cannot enter the grey area. This can be seen be a straight-forward connection in the original problem of A1, A2, A3, B3, and C3, which leaves B1, B2, C1 and C2 left, as in the above graph.







                share|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  The problem can be reduced to the following scenario:




                  utility




                  where:




                  both green vertices need to be connected to both red vertices, but the edges cannot enter the grey area. This can be seen be a straight-forward connection in the original problem of A1, A2, A3, B3, and C3, which leaves B1, B2, C1 and C2 left, as in the above graph.







                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  The problem can be reduced to the following scenario:




                  utility




                  where:




                  both green vertices need to be connected to both red vertices, but the edges cannot enter the grey area. This can be seen be a straight-forward connection in the original problem of A1, A2, A3, B3, and C3, which leaves B1, B2, C1 and C2 left, as in the above graph.








                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jun 18 at 7:43









                  JonMark PerryJonMark Perry

                  24.8k6 gold badges46 silver badges109 bronze badges




                  24.8k6 gold badges46 silver badges109 bronze badges

































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Puzzling Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpuzzling.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f84316%2fwhy-is-this-simple-puzzle-impossible-to-solve%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                      He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                      Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029