Tricky Math Problem
May 19, 2020 15:00:33 #
I posted on page 6 a repeat of the correct procedure and answer. I did that because so many preceding me claimed they followed the rules and got wrong answers (they didn't follow the rules). I thought my explanation might convince a few that they erred. I see we still have people posting with wrong answers and convinced they are following the rules of arithmetic. That is what surprises me.
May 19, 2020 15:44:49 #
David in Dallas wrote:
I posted on page 6 a repeat of the correct procedure and answer. I did that because so many preceding me claimed they followed the rules and got wrong answers (they didn't follow the rules). I thought my explanation might convince a few that they erred. I see we still have people posting with wrong answers and convinced they are following the rules of arithmetic. That is what surprises me.
Don't be surprised. I ask quite a few people of ages 18 to 45 how many feet and inches in a yard. Only about 30 out of a hundred I ask know. Many work at lowes, home depot, etc. Older people seem to know. I had a few who graduated in the last year or so who didn't know and used the excuse why do I need to know that.
May 19, 2020 16:40:41 #
polonois wrote:
Did you ask them something about a popular singer? And when they answer, did you ask why they "needed" to know that?Don't be surprised. I ask quite a few people of ages 18 to 45 how many feet and inches in a yard. . . . I had a few who graduated in the last year or so who didn't know and used the excuse why do I need to know that.
May 19, 2020 18:07:30 #
David in Dallas wrote:
Did you ask them something about a popular singer? And when they answer, did you ask why they "needed" to know that?
No,however that a great question.
May 20, 2020 02:50:12 #
May 20, 2020 09:23:26 #
I think I may know why we keep getting isolated answers (mostly wrong) posted. Folks access the thread, read the question, and come up with an answer without going any farther--they want to make their answer without getting any "help" from those who've also posted--they want it to be "their" work. Then, if they do read further and discover they did it wrong, they can't delete their post because there is no provision on this forum for deletion (and it may be too late to make a change, too). (Or they may be convinced they did it right, anyway.)
I originally posted an answer (which was wrong) and on reading further realized that the boy in the last line was carrying bouguets and wearing shoes, which changed his value. So I recalculated with that new information and changed my original post (with the right answer). As it happens, the post that revealed to me the boy's difference had used wrong values and had given a wrong answer, so I wasn't copying someone else's work--just their realization that the boy was different.
I originally posted an answer (which was wrong) and on reading further realized that the boy in the last line was carrying bouguets and wearing shoes, which changed his value. So I recalculated with that new information and changed my original post (with the right answer). As it happens, the post that revealed to me the boy's difference had used wrong values and had given a wrong answer, so I wasn't copying someone else's work--just their realization that the boy was different.
May 20, 2020 11:33:45 #
David in Dallas wrote:
I posted on page 6 a repeat of the correct procedure and answer. I did that because so many preceding me claimed they followed the rules and got wrong answers (they didn't follow the rules). I thought my explanation might convince a few that they erred. I see we still have people posting with wrong answers and convinced they are following the rules of arithmetic. That is what surprises me.
Me and a couple of others had no problem with the arithmetic;
however we did not notice that the "boy" in the "question"
slightly differed to the boy in the examples.
I assumed the matter was one of "Tricky Math" as per the heading of the thread,
and went full steam ahead with the arithmetic without worrying about a
detail difference (in the boy from example to question).
Ipso facto the trick was not in the "math", the trick was one of observation.
Also the arithmetic protocol of the boy with the two cones (in the question) is arguable.
For example one could argue the boy could be multiplied by two cones or
the two cones could be added to the boy etc. You see there is no mathematical
protocol for a diagram depicting boys with cones... even if we know the numerical
value of the boy and a cone... for that reason, imho, the correct answer is subjective.
May 20, 2020 11:42:48 #
David in Dallas wrote:
Did you ask them something about a popular singer? And when they answer, did you ask why they "needed" to know that?
They'd answer "so I can tweet about it of course... daaaahhhhh" or
"so I know what shoes to buy"... or some other equally "important" reason. lol.
May 20, 2020 11:57:22 #
Abo wrote:
Me and a couple of others had no problem with the ... (show quote)
Similarly, just because an image of two sneakers is worth 10, is no reason to assume that an image of one sneaker is worth 5, any more than that value of "8" is half the value of "88".
May 20, 2020 12:05:59 #
JamesCurran wrote:
Similarly, just because an image of two sneakers is worth 10, is no reason to assume that an image of one sneaker is worth 5, any more than that value of "8" is half the value of "88".
You could give a man a headache ;-)
May 20, 2020 12:29:08 #
David Martin
Loc: Cary, NC
Abo wrote:
You see there is no mathematical protocol for a diagram depicting boys with cones... even if we know the numerical value of the boy and a cone... for that reason, imho, the correct answer is subjective.
Interesting thought.
So take Ohm's law E=IR.
The I next to the R means multiply. IR = I x R.
A boy next to a shoe could mean boy x shoe rather than boy + shoe.
May 20, 2020 14:30:20 #
It was a simple math problem not very completed. Here is something more complicated to try.
Show that the curve r = sin θ tan θ (called a cissoid of Diocles) has the line x = 1 as a vertical asymptote. Show also that the curve lies entirely within the vertical strip 0 ≤ x < 1. Use these facts to help sketch the cissoid.
Show that the curve r = sin θ tan θ (called a cissoid of Diocles) has the line x = 1 as a vertical asymptote. Show also that the curve lies entirely within the vertical strip 0 ≤ x < 1. Use these facts to help sketch the cissoid.
May 21, 2020 01:45:29 #
Delete - didn’t notice something...
New solution for me:
Pair of shoes =10
Boy = 5
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
New solution for me:
Pair of shoes =10
Boy = 5
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
May 21, 2020 02:16:52 #
cucharared wrote:
The multiplier is a single cone = 2, not 4, and parentheses are not necessary -- MDAS applies.Delete - didn’t notice something...
New solution for me:
Pair of shoes =10
Boy = 5
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
New solution for me:
Pair of shoes =10
Boy = 5
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
May 21, 2020 07:17:33 #
David Martin
Loc: Cary, NC
cucharared wrote:
Boy = 5
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
Pair of cream cones = 4
Therefore boy with pair of shoes and two ICcones = 19
So,
10+19x2=29x2=58
Now, if you start assuming there are parentheses thrown in, then that’s another answer entirely. But then I reckon it’s 48.
Ron
Well crap. I see now that someone’s claiming you have to multiply first, so I guess that means I’ll be going with my second answer - 48.
Yes, multiply first. But the final equation is only 1 shoe so it should be
5+19x2=5+38=43
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.