/sci/ - Science & Math

you guessed. there's nothing scientific about it. if i had to guess your iq and i pulled 63 out of my ass, i bet i'd be pretty close too.

6 was a Bad Guss though.

>>5160600

Actually studies show that humans can "innately see" up to 7 or 8 without really counting.

>>5160658
Very related :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj4y0EUlU-Y

80/13, you think, obviously can't be 7, so it's probably 6 something

>>5160704
True, but I'm more interested in the science behind the celerity of the computation.

The thought process to a question goes like this: 80 divided by 10 is 8. Everyone knows that. Well, most of those who have gone through elementary school would know. But the number we're dividing by 80 with is greater than 10, so the quotient can't possibly by 8. It must be 7 or less.

Assuming we go down the range to a number that's easy to divide things by, let's say 5 because division by 5 works well for most numbers. Now, you're probably done enough problems involving division by 5 in your lifetime to know that 80 divided by 5 is 16 or at least greater than 15. That can't be right if we're looking for the quotient of 80 divided by 13.

So, you deduce from the two observations that the quotient of 80 divided by 13 must be greater than 5, and greater or equal to 7. This narrows the choice down to 6, 7, or a number in-between. Any of these would do if you're looking for a rough estimate.

>>5160863
choose 10.1
80/10.1 is greater than 7 dumbshit.

>>5160883