Just because you are well read, doesn't mean you are smart

File: 49 KB, 1200x630, 1562197369811.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:07:04 2019 No.13406704 [DELETED]

Just because you are well read, doesn't mean you are smart

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:08:11 2019 No.13406712 40

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:09:09 2019 No.13406716 >>13406712 It's actually 96, you multiply the first number by one more than the second number.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:09:29 2019 No.13406722 1+4= 5 2+5+5= 12 3+6+12 = 21 8+11+21 = 40 answer is 40

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:10:33 2019 No.13406727 >>13406704 I'm getting 96 but these things are usually designed so that you can interpret several different patterns out of them to get boomers arguing in fb comment sections.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:10:45 2019 No.13406729 https://vocaroo.com/i/s0S5P5slMwgl

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:11:24 2019 No.13406733 Being "smarter" or being better at IQ tests doesn't determine your worth as a human

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:12:54 2019 No.13406740 >>13406704 I think my middle-aged mom posted this to her Facebook group. The answer is 40 by the way.

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:14:45 2019 No.13406749

>>13406729
Not some of your best work
>>13406722
So long as we interpret "+" as a binary operator (as suggested by the fact that actual arithmetical addition is a binary operation) this is garbage. Only the 96 interpretation maintains "+" as a binary operator.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:14:45 2019 No.13406750 >>13406716 This is correct 1 + 4 = 5 2 + 5 = 12 3 + 6 = 21 4 + 7 = 32 5 + 8 = 45 6 + 9 = 60 7 + 10 = 77 8 + 11 = 96

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:14:48 2019 No.13406751 File: 105 KB, 645x729, 1518917243266.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >40 answer is 96 brainlets

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:16:45 2019 No.13406759 The answer is 19. t. 162 iq

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:17:40 2019 No.13406761

Two patterns that both perfectly fit the answers we're given and which result in two completely different answers, i.e. 40 and 96, have both been very clearly outlined in the thread, and yet you utter morons are maintaining one of them is more valid than the other

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:19:17 2019 No.13406770 >>13406704 40 1+4=5 1+4+2+5=12 1+4+2+5+3+6=21 1+4+2+5+3+6+8+11=40

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:20:31 2019 No.13406774 52 It's left number + right numberindex So 8 + 114 = 52.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:21:22 2019 No.13406776 >>13406761 this guy is right, it's just a dumb gotcha image for retarded boomers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:22:59 2019 No.13406783 Answer is 52 1(x1) + 4(x1) = 5 2(x1( + 5(x2) = 12 3(x1) + 6(x3) = 21 8(x1) + 11(x4) = 52

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:24:03 2019 No.13406789 File: 410 KB, 2000x2000, 4chanIQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13406750 low IQ post

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:25:01 2019 No.13406792 >>13406761 see >>13406749

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:25:05 2019 No.13406793 File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1555816089492.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13406761 >i.e. 40 and 96 >>13406774 >>13406783

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:26:39 2019 No.13406800 >>13406793 52 gang rise up

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:28:26 2019 No.13406806 >>13406704 96 imo

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:28:31 2019 No.13406807 >>13406800 #team52

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:33:39 2019 No.13406827 >>13406704 the answer is 19. the two in the middle are clearly and demonstrably wrong

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:37:51 2019 No.13406844 >>13406827 Glad I'm not alone, here I was starting to worry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:39:07 2019 No.13406850 >>13406733 yes it does, subhuman faggot

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:42:11 2019 No.13406868 the question is unanswerable

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:46:04 2019 No.13406886 >>13406868 t. Bill Gates

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:55:52 2019 No.13406918 File: 79 KB, 1920x1080, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13406704

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:57:15 2019 No.13406924 File: 486 KB, 238x155, Lucille Bluth Rolling Her Eyes.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13406789

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 20:59:55 2019 No.13406927 >>13406850 Prove it objectively

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 21:06:56 2019 No.13406951 >>13406733 Oh, I'm sorry you failed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 21:37:19 2019 No.13407052 >>13406704 The true iq test here is whether or not you're stupid enough to argue about this dumb puzzle on the internet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 21:54:54 2019 No.13407114 >>13406751 >>13406750 These

>>	Kierkegaard Wed Jul 3 22:13:07 2019 No.13407189 >>13406704 The answer is 96. Where is my great IQ certificate?

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 22:27:03 2019 No.13407260

>>13406704
I was taught that the "+" sign signified "addition", meaning to add the two numbers together. The first answer provided is "5", which is of course the correct answer to the mathematical problem "1 +4". However the next two equations either stray from this rule, or are simply false. Given that these two problems are incorrect, we can therefore skip to the fourth equation "8 + 11 = ?". The answer to this equation is "19".

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 22:47:17 2019 No.13407337

>>13406704
The beauty of a question isn't that its answers are seemingly simple, what is more beautiful is the principle behind them.

Let us rephrase the operand to avoid ambiguity (and unwarranted assumptions, such as "preserving binary operations a la >>13406749). We shall now give the operand as ~ (for want of a symbol that people aren't acquainted with in mathematical contexts: such as /, *, ^, !, and so on). In such a case, the equations can be rephrased as follows:

1 ~ 4 = 5
2 ~ 5 = 12
3 ~ 6 = 21
8 ~ 11 = ?

Let 'x' designate the first number and 'y' the second, such that y > x >= 1. In this case, I interpreted the operand as follows from the given solutions:

x ~ y = (x + y) + ([x - 1] + [y - 1]) + ([x - 2] + [y - 2]) + . . . for all positive x.

This means the following:

1 ~ 4 = 1 + 4 = 5
2 ~ 5 = (2 + 5) + (1 + 4) = 7 + 5 = 12
3 ~ 6 = (3 + 6) + (2 + 5) + (1 + 4) = 9 + 7 + 5 = 21

In the case of 8 ~ 11, it would equal 96.

As >>13406716 and >>13406750 perceived, however, the solutions also give a solution to the operand as simply x ~ y = x * (y + 1). Indeed, both these answers yield 96.

The diversity of serious answers here (40, 19, 52) are byproducts of variant solution "strategies". In a universe where the only context given for the operand ~ were the three examples in OP's picture, all these solutions are possible answers. It's probably a more tractable example to Kripke's "quus" operand example in "Rules and Private Language", a famed commentary on Wittgenstein. The reality is that there is no "correct" answer, since we should not presume that the game's rules are inherently logical, whether it is feasible to question the examples given on solid grounds, or if the choice of operand being '+' truly does rely solely on binary operations, or if the answer is merely '3' just so.

Anonymous Wed Jul 3 22:49:57 2019 No.13407347

>>13407337
>for all positive x
I meant to say all positive expressions to the left side of ~.

Another interesting question would be this: what would you expect 0 ~ 3 to be? This is where my answer to the question collapses, but the multiplication answer does not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:33:41 2019 No.13407472 >>13407337 >>13407347 >This is where my answer to the question collapses, but the multiplication answer does not. because your answer is lousy, no need to reinvent the wheel with recurrence when multiplication does the job

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:34:49 2019 No.13407476 >>13406704 it's 19 dumbass

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:40:49 2019 No.13407496 >>13407337 psued

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:43:23 2019 No.13407507 >>13407337 this guy clearly wins the thread

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:46:15 2019 No.13407519 >>13406716 How do you tell which the solution is if either solution works?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:50:40 2019 No.13407539 96 multiply then add the first

>>	Anonymous Wed Jul 3 23:56:38 2019 No.13407560 >>13407496 >>13407337 jk, you're right that this is a bs question because there are no rules to it and thus it yields multiple, possibly correct answers. This is the true dummy filter.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 00:00:06 2019 No.13407570 >>13407519 because of >>13406749 numbskull

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 00:01:08 2019 No.13407575 >>13407507 t. midwit easily impressed by a little mathematical notation. His answer is correct though

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 00:03:26 2019 No.13407587 >>13407575 I am full on brainlet actually I was just impressed with the effort he put into his post, it was pleasant to read.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:33:33 2019 No.13408174 >>13406704 This is insultingly easy. You simply add the answer of the previous equation to the answer of the next. 1+4=5 5+2+5=12 12+3+6=21 21+8+11=40 Clearly OP is the one lacking smarts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:34:56 2019 No.13408177 40

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:36:38 2019 No.13408182 >>13406918 uh

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:36:41 2019 No.13408183 >>13406704 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:46:13 2019 No.13408204 >>13406722 >>13406712 >>13408177 >>13408174 I am camp 40 but like camp 19. Camp 96 are a bunch of pseuds.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:49:24 2019 No.13408209 >>13408204 Honestly i think the intelligence test was not whether you got it right. It was what right answer you got.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:50:11 2019 No.13408212

>>13408204
Well 19 is obviously wrong as the test isn't asking you to simply add the numbers together.

However both 96 and 40 are right since there's nothing about the method used to get to 40 that is more "fundamental" or "absolute" or "true" than the method used to get to 96. It's actually a problem I've noticed with a lot of IQ tests

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:50:56 2019 No.13408213 >>13408209 I respect camp 52. Camp 96 are the pedantic cunt you know. I think this is more of a personality test than an intelligence one.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:52:49 2019 No.13408217

>>13408212
No, I like 19 because they assume that the second two answers are false. The second two answers are false based on the rules of the notation and thus they are also correct. That rigidity of not playing into the figuring out of the test is what I respect. It assumes that the puzzle maker himself is stupid and that is based.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:53:03 2019 No.13408218 >>13408213 Maybe. I believe those who rejected or overlooked the most obvious answer are the least intelligent, regardless of their mathematical prowess.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:53:59 2019 No.13408221 >>13406729 p o s e r

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:54:00 2019 No.13408222 I reject the superficiality of natural numbers. The answer is anything I want it to be.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:55:29 2019 No.13408227 1 + 4 = 5 ...Correct! 2 + 5 = 12...Sorry, son. That's incorrect. The correct answer is 7. 3 + 6 = 21 WRONG. It's 9! 8 + 11 = 19 Wow, i must be the only person in this thread who was in math class in 1st grade.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:56:56 2019 No.13408230 You're all fucking buffoons; the answer's staring you right in the face and not a single one of you have said it. I'll grace you with my divine intellect and bestow upon you my knowledge. The answer is "?".

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 03:57:58 2019 No.13408231 >>13408227 It's asking you to think outside of the box. IF 1+4=5 and 2+5=12 and 3+6=21 THEN what does 8+11=?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:01:35 2019 No.13408240 F(n)=n(n+3)+n, n∈N

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:05:28 2019 No.13408250

>>13408231
>>13408231
My son. You have been born into a world that has a scientific mathematical base that has built upon for 8 thousand years. A system so unique and complex that even the human mind needed millenniums to perfect it. But you are lucky enough to live in a time where all of it has been set up JUST for you my son. Just for you. Now...Some utter MORON...a buffoon has produced an equally moronic image on the internet with 1 minute of his time. He has the nerve...the gall...to ask you to completely REJECT the mathematical base that has been left for you and use his retarded base that has absolutely no bearing or meaning. It is an artificial joke and he's asks...NAY...HE COMMANDS YOU! To use his worthless base and defecate upon the one that has true meaning. Why? BECAUSE YOU NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN.
SILENCE! You absolute worthless wretch. Only a fool would fall for this trick. That is the real IQ test.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:05:47 2019 No.13408251 >>13406704 96

>>	Elthuria Thu Jul 4 04:06:00 2019 No.13408254 >>13408231 According to that logic you are adding one to the second number and then multiplying

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:08:57 2019 No.13408261 File: 34 KB, 489x495, bigbrain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] 5 12 21 5

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:11:34 2019 No.13408271 >>13406704 32 5+7 = 12 12+9 = 21 21+11=32

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:13:27 2019 No.13408275
File: 122 KB, 740x538, words_that_end_in_gry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the problem with these "logic puzzles" is that they make no pretense of being reasonable. they always hide behind a blatant misdirection that no one of sound mind would jump to. why am I supposed to assume that the plus symbol is not actually an operation of addition? I'm not stupid for assuming you're following established conventions when you didn't say otherwise
if you really wanted the puzzle to be about solving an undefined operand, then you should have used a different symbol that isn't already an established operand in mathematics, especially one that's used in basic arithmetic. if you had given me
>F(1,4)=5
>F(2,5)=12
>F(3,6)=21
>F(8,11)=?
I would have been able to solve it within two minutes, but the reliance on forcing it into a symbol that already has an established meaning is just an exercise in "how well can you ignore the most fundamental rules of mathematics while solving a problem using mathematics?" it's like writing a locked room mystery but then saying at the end "oh, well the back wall was actually a hologram" despite it not being in a sci-fi setting

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:13:41 2019 No.13408276 >>13408240 1) with x + y = F(x,y) 2) F(x,y) = (x*y) + x where + in 1) is just a meme, and + in 2) is actually + so 96

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:14:40 2019 No.13408280 + is any map that contains ((1, 4), 5), ((2, 5), 12), ((3, 6), 21) and has (8, 11) in its domain. ? is the image of (8, 11) under +.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:14:44 2019 No.13408281 >>13406733 no, but Having sex does

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:14:50 2019 No.13408282 >>13406704 Any integer is a valid answer because if x + y = (x + y) is true and x + y != (x + y) is true then we can simplify it to x + y = true.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:15:24 2019 No.13408283 It's 32 retards. They are working vertically: Row 1. +1+1+5 Row 2. +1+1+5 Row 3. +7+9+11

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:15:30 2019 No.13408285 The virgin 96 The incel 40 The Chad 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:19:48 2019 No.13408296 >>13408280 so are you saying that 8 + 11 = ? all along

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:22:05 2019 No.13408303 >>13408285 The pseud 96 The based 40 And The brainlet 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:23:35 2019 No.13408305 It's 19, bunch of pseuds itt lmao can't even basic math

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:23:40 2019 No.13408306 1 + 4 = 5 (2 + 5 = 12) -> (1 + 4 - 2 = 12 - 2) -> (1+ 4 = 10) 1 + 4 = 5 != 10 = 1 + 4 1 + 4 != 1 + 4 1 != 1 the answer is "false"

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:25:20 2019 No.13408312 Nice, math problems for dumbfuck retards t. M.Sc in math

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:25:32 2019 No.13408313 >>13408303 96 actually occured to me first but having the fortitude to answer 19 is objectively based. 40 and 96 are just two flavors of the same wrong answer. 19 is objectively correct. Aforementioned Chad>>13408227

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:27:19 2019 No.13408318 >>13408306 based

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:30:00 2019 No.13408329 1. 1+4 = 5 Correct 2. 2+5 = 12 False, 2+5 != 12 3. 3+6 = 21 False, 3+6 != 21 4. 8+11 = 19 Correct

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:33:34 2019 No.13408337

>>13408303
96 here, you've got the based and brainlet switched around. Addition is easier than unimplied multiplcation then addition so while pseudery; 96 displays objectively more brainpower.
19 employs philosophic brainpower. "a+b=c" means what it means and you do not contradict fact.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:34:57 2019 No.13408341 >>13408312 Just tell us which camp you choose baby dick.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:35:20 2019 No.13408343 how retarded am I if my first instinct was that it's not in base 10?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:35:30 2019 No.13408344 96 and that is FINAL /thread NOW

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:35:36 2019 No.13408346 >>13408329 This Just because the wrong answers have a pattern doesn't mean that 8 + 11 doesn't equal 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:37:37 2019 No.13408351 >>13408343 The whole point of the test is that it's really easy. I'd say you're 96% retarded. Some might argue that its 40%

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:45:29 2019 No.13408374 >>13408343 Very, the lowest possible base here is base 6 an the second line can be immediately seen to not follow. Second line equals 11 if base 6.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:47:13 2019 No.13408378
File: 7 KB, 192x239, 16667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>13406704
1+4=5
2+5=12
3+6=21
4+7=32
5+8=45
6+9=60
7+10=77
8+11=96

I realize I had to criss cross the equations like a puzzle. Btw I would've given up if I hadn't known the answer was 96, so hints help. <--(Which is why theism is essential to human cultivation)

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:50:49 2019 No.13408388 >>13408378 >sees a '+' >multiplies woah... so this is the power of common core

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:53:16 2019 No.13408397

>>13408346
How can you people not see this? You are all extremely overthinking it.
Just because there are patterns that get you to either 40 or 96 is irrelevant, the fact that their are two possible patterns should tell you this.
8 + 11 is 19, it is literally as simple as that, you are all trying so hard to be clever that you overlook simple fucking addition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 04:53:52 2019 No.13408398 File: 68 KB, 310x310, 1552546036583.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13408388 omg i think it's trying to communicate

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:25:07 2019 No.13408475
File: 129 KB, 446x330, slowboard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Somehow I'm not surprised that a thread on /lit/ about an IQ puzzle looks exactly the same as the facebook comments of low-IQ boomers. How fucking retarded must you be to not see through the meme?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:28:09 2019 No.13408480 File: 39 KB, 680x695, 25d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13408475 >I'll just call everyone dumb, that will make me smart!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:29:19 2019 No.13408484 >>13408480 Are you blind? Literally just read the fucking thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:29:38 2019 No.13408485 >>13408475 This. I'm genuinely surprised. Obviously the pic was composed to create a fake controversy similar to the "pineapple on pizza" shit. All answers are right as long as they're mathematically sound.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:30:16 2019 No.13408488 >>13408475 I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved to /sci/ yet since they love talking about IQ

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:35:10 2019 No.13408499

>>13408485
>>13408475
>why are you buying into the narrative and having fun????
>you all must not realize it's a narrative!!!!
>truth bomb!!!

Dude I enjoy Fast and the Furious movies ironically. I personally believe that they are written as high satire since the fifth film. Just because you recognize a shitty narrative doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:39:20 2019 No.13408509

>>13408499
Fair enough, but I have seen hundreds of memes like this and I see that there's just nothing behind it, just memeing boomers who have no idea what mathematics is actually about to reveal how retarded they are by actually getting invested in this meme and arduously arguing with other people over why their own answer is correct and why the people with a different answer are stupid. It's just so tiresome at this point. It could potentially be enjoyable if people posting in this thread knew one bit about mathematics, but that's too much to expect of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:39:28 2019 No.13408511 >>13408499 >why are you eating shit? >dude I'm eating shit IRONICALLY

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:41:50 2019 No.13408520 >>13406750 Hmm I always assumed it's 88 1 + 4 = 1 * 4 + 1 = 5 2 + 5 = 2 * 5 + 2 = 12 3 + 6 = 3 * 6 + 3 = 21 8 + 11 = 8 * 11 + 8 = 88 No wonder I'm having problems with poetry, I'm a total brainlet

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:47:13 2019 No.13408529 File: 335 KB, 699x485, 1497785530092.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13408520 >8 + 11 = 8 * 11 + 8 = 88 + 8 = 88

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:49:24 2019 No.13408536

>>13408511
If you've never watched Fast 5 with the conception that it is a comedy you are seriously missing out. It is fucking hilarious. Just picture the fucking consumer of professional wrestling who is taking it seriously and every concept comes to life as a caricature of the action genre. The movies are masterpieces of comedy. Take two steps back and consider them from this perspective and you will share in my laughter. In Fast 5 the scene where Rock's team dies for example is as predictable as it is humorous which leads me to considering it as intentional satire. There is a team member who not one, not two, but FUCKING THREE grenades lands next two while screaming at Rock for help and then exploding that was the final nail in the coffin in my belief that the writers were considering this anything less than satire. Seriously, believe me. The writers, who surely went to college for film and find films like Chinatown and Metropolis to be good wrote this as a satire of the action genre, as a testament to how far the idiotic low brow will accept as serious. I absolutely love the Fast and Furious franchise for this reason and have the 8 comedies on bluray and will be seeing their ridiculous spin off tomorrow in theaters.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:51:45 2019 No.13408542 >>13408529 Oh damn :( I guess I was right then but for the wrong reasons

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 05:53:26 2019 No.13408549 File: 284 KB, 500x1238, So bad it's good.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>13408499

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:04:14 2019 No.13408578 >>13408549 It's far more like eating cake. It's recognizing that cake is lacking nutrition and substance. However, it is also recognizing that cake takes skill to make and while it is superfluous and bad for you, it tastes good and is fun.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:06:08 2019 No.13408585 File: 19 KB, 367x255, 1491511187984.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I know some of you consider yourselves very smart, so don't beat yourselves up if you can't solve this

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:07:06 2019 No.13408589 >>13406704 it's 40

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:07:55 2019 No.13408593 >>13408585 ... I think you should add "positive integer" on this, not "values". It is easy as hell if this is about real numbers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:08:18 2019 No.13408598 >>13408593 Well yeah positive integers, I thought it was a given

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:08:37 2019 No.13408601 >>13408593 This

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:10:18 2019 No.13408607 >>13408593 And easy as hell if it is about Z too

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:11:17 2019 No.13408610 >>13408585 Apple = 3 Banana = 5 Potato = 10

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:13:14 2019 No.13408625 >>13408610 I can tell it is wrong from the get-go. The first term equals a fifth, the second term is less than one and the third term is slightly more than 1. It wil not equal 4

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:14:33 2019 No.13408630 >>13408625 I can because there are no potatoes and potatoes are cheaper than pinapples.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:17:17 2019 No.13408639 >>13408610 Actually Banan is 4 and Potato is 8

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:19:39 2019 No.13408649

>>13408585
pinnepale = (36 a^3 + 153 a^2 b + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 a^5 b + 171 a^4 b^2 + 1642 a^3 b^3 + 171 a^2 b^4 - 1080 a b^5 - 432 b^6) + 153 a b^2 + 36 b^3)^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 a b - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 a^2 b + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 a^5 b + 171 a^4 b^2 + 1642 a^3 b^3 + 171 a^2 b^4 - 1080 a b^5 - 432 b^6) + 153 a b^2 + 36 b^3)^(1/3)) + a + b, b a^2 + (a + b + (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 b a - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3))) a^2 + b^2 a + (a + b + (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 b a - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)))^2 a + 2 b (a + b + (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 b a - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3))) a + b (a + b + (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 b a - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)))^2 + b^2 (a + b + (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)/(2^(1/3) 3^(2/3)) - ((2/3)^(1/3) (-18 a^2 - 33 b a - 18 b^2))/(3 (36 a^3 + 153 b a^2 + 153 b^2 a + 36 b^3 + sqrt(3) sqrt(-432 a^6 - 1080 b a^5 + 171 b^2 a^4 + 1642 b^3 a^3 + 171 b^4 a^2 - 1080 b^5 a - 432 b^6))^(1/3)))!=0

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:23:34 2019 No.13408668 >>13408585 Apple is 40 Banana is 96 Pineapple is 19

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:25:14 2019 No.13408672 >>13408585 a -4 b-1 p -11

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:25:31 2019 No.13408673 >>13406749 >So long as we interpret "+" as a binary operator (as suggested by the fact that actual arithmetical addition is a binary operation) this is garbage. Only the 96 interpretation maintains "+" as a binary operator. There is no refuting this

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:27:05 2019 No.13408680 >>13408668 Hmm let's see. First term: 40/115 Second term: 96/59 Third term: 19/136 So you have approximately a 1/3 + 2 + 1/6, this will not equal four

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:34:35 2019 No.13408700 >>13408585 7/1/1

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:36:46 2019 No.13408710 >>13408585 Apple = Father Banana = Christ Pineapple = Holy Spirit

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:36:52 2019 No.13408713

>>13406761
+ should always be interpreted as binary operator unless explicitly stated otherwise. Even making it a three argument function, you would write the third argument on the same line or otherwise make some sort of written link to the operator symbol.
It might not be iq but it's basic étiquette of symbolism. Doing anything else make you a symbolic nigger.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 06:44:43 2019 No.13408728 >>13408713 What's a binary operator ?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:19:22 2019 No.13408807 >>13407337 stfu retard, it's a simple pattern no need for the excessive masturbatory rhetoric. god why do humanities major do this? turn simple things into verbose garbage

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:22:13 2019 No.13408813 >>13406704 Also the test was stupid as fuck as since when did "+" = "*" ??????? People think they can just use mathematical symbols interchangeably when it's removed from a mathematical context and in a IQ pattern identification context? FUCKING MORONS

Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:25:10 2019 No.13408818

>>13408728
A symbol for a two argument function.
As opposed to operators with, say, a single argument (like the function k - > minus k) or three arguments (like ~(a, b, c) = (a+b)^c for example) or any other number of arguments.
It's considered bad practice to use common binary symbols for non binary functions, but the, orst offense of the anons answering 40 is that op clearly has the + symbol between two numbers with no sign of the third one on the same mine. Writing a function symbol between two arguments is obviously only legitimate for binary operators because you only have two relative positions (before and after on the line) unless you adopt even more memetic systems of writing in 2 dimensions. For a three argument function you would write +(arg 1, arg 2, arg 3).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:51:17 2019 No.13408867 >>13408585 Any answers for this?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 07:58:30 2019 No.13408885 >>13408867 https://mathoverflow.net/questions/227713/estimating-the-size-of-solutions-of-a-diophantine-equation cheers

>>	Anonymous Thu Jul 4 08:06:31 2019 No.13408907 >>13408885 Thank you.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature