/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15906744
>You should be able to solve this.
>two squares AND a triangle with area 1
image placement of "1" implies "two squares, and a triangle with area 1" contradicting written instruction (lack of subclause)
>two squares AND a triangle
image shows two squares with no separate triangle

i'll cut you

>>14730973
>A circle is only 2022 points
Kys

>>14558570
>Vague platitudes everyone always hears get interpreted to mean the usual platitudes everyone spews
>"This is proof YOU lack self awareness!"

Boy you're dumb.

>>10374391
>HURRRRR BUT I HAVEN'T TOLD YOU THE RELATION BETWEEN HOUR SHOWN AND CLOCK VALUE

>>9553542
>webcomic reply
here is something you should be able to wrap your tiny brain around

>>9186226
This was made for people like you

>>7230118
>mocking pretentious wannabe-intellectuals
is clearly not the aim of the comic. Not that he never does that, but he makes it very obvious when he does.

>>5897576
>temperate

>>5705763
The question asked was "When is 1/3 bigger than 1/2?" The answer is never.

If the question was "When is 1/3 of something bigger than 1/2 of something else?" the answer would be "When the first thing is sufficiently large."

picture related

>>5640844
>expressing an expression linearly without the liberal use of brackets for the sake of ambiguity

>>5611074

Arithmetic 101

Bracket the absolute hell out of it.

I'm not going to.

>>5577408

If you're told that you're working mod 12, it's just modular arithmetic. Otherwise, someone's just being a douche.

not math

>>5236855
Butthurt? Me? I suppose i am.

Obligatory.

>>4830921
>founded on religious principles which is 'exactly' what I said
That's not at all "exactly" what you said. You said it was a "religiously founded country".

>An IQ test based on the ambiguity of language

Strictly speaking, the answer is 9.

HOWEVER

If a mathematician wrote this equation out seriously, there's a good chance he would, off the top of his head, be expecting 1 as the answer, because breaking up an implicit multiplication by order of operations is just... poor form.

If you write out an equation with an implicit multiplication that gets broken up by order of operations, you're a clown.

Pic very related.

>>4566647

>>4564108

<--- Related

The problem with this is the last line.

What exactly are they trying to determine by adding all those numbers together? The total amount of money owed? The total cost of the shirt? What the fuck...