/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9199054]

Fuck I'm really confused. Can anyone help?

[Anonymous No.9199060]

121 :^)

[Anonymous No.9199073]

it says it right there on the first line retard
1 = 11
therefore
11 = 1

[Anonymous No.9199081]

>>9199073
>assuming that the newly defined = relation is symmetric
study set theory will you

[Anonymous No.9199098]

>>9199081
bitch i eat set theory for breakfast and nobody uses = for asymmetric relations its usually ~ or R(a,b) otherwise my answer is right because i defined the relation to be symmetric and i can do that because nobody else said = is not symmetric

[Anonymous No.9199101]

1=11
2=22
3=33
etc....

x = (10x + x)

therefore

11=112

You're welcome.

[Anonymous No.9199103]

>>9199101

hum it's actually x = 11x sweetie

[Anonymous No.9199107]

>>9199098
"I can assume X to be Y because nobody else said otherwise"
yeah, that's the essence of math proofs. try doing this in your next test and have fun :)

[Anonymous No.9199109]

>>9199103
>(10x+x) is not 11x

[Anonymous No.9199112]

>>9199054
its 11 11

they just wrote every number twice on the right

[Anonymous No.9199116]

>>9199109

but R(1,11) != 112 tho ;D

[Anonymous No.9199119]

Well..
The assumption of Real Operations has nothing to do with pattern recognition. You could equally say the answer is 1111.

Genius is a loaded word, and I doubt Genius can be tested outside of its application.

[Anonymous No.9199142]

>>9199119
we don't need your practical and rational attitude around here. this site is just for people who feel they need the approval of strangers from the internet.

[Anonymous No.9199150]

>>9199119
>>9199142

fuck off nerds

[Anonymous No.9199293]

This is a nonsense... Just like questions of the type : 1,2,3,4,5,x what will be x? ... It can be proven that x can be any number you want... It just depends on the author...

[Anonymous No.9199304]

111

[Anonymous No.9199309]

Not enough information, there are too many possible patterns and the terms aren't necessarily rigidly defined. Is the "=" sign symmetrical? If so, 11 = 1. But that's just assuming. If it's assymetrical, what other patterns could it follow? And really these are innumerable. Maybe the function multiplies the first by 11, and the answer is 121. Maybe the function just repeats the input, and the answer is 1111. Maybe it repeats the final digit in the number, and the answer is 111.

Pattern recognition and application is only as effective as the amount of input we get. If we had millions of examples we could draw more accurate conclusions as to the answer, but as it stands all we can postulate are theories. This is a decent analogy to the progression of science, where with only a little research we can conceive of many many explanations for the data. But further testing eliminates certain possibilities.

Also this illustrates the fundamental flaw of induction, that it's own reasoning is necessarily circular.

Also this highlights the fact that I am on way too much adderal and may die within the hour

[Anonymous No.9199319]

>>9199054
1 = 11
2 = 22
3 = 33
4 = 44
5 = 55
6 = 66
11 = 1 (because equality is a symmetric relation)

[Anonymous No.9199324]

>>9199101
I honestly hope that was just a typo

[Anonymous No.9199332]

>>9199101
10x + x where x=11
10(11) + 11
110 + 11
121

[Anonymous No.9199341]

>>9199319
You can't be certain that equality is symmetrical. Actually, the equals sign in mathematics is more similar to the bi-implication symbol in logic. But then you don't even know the exact nature of the system. Think about it this way, what if the numbers aren't numbers but are instead characters? Then the function looks more like x = x+x.

You don't know for sure faggot

[Anonymous No.9199344]

you fucking math fags ITT are so insufferable

this is a fucking shitpost thread, why can't you stop being autistic for a moment?

[Anonymous No.9199354]

>>9199098
anon, set theory for breakfast doesn't sound very nutritious

[Anonymous No.9199379]

>>9199054
1111 ? Maybe ?

[Anonymous No.9199395]

>>9199054
1 through 6 then suddenly 11 out of fucking no where. What monkey can't count to 7? Also 11=1 since it was defined in the first line.

[Anonymous No.9199399]

>>9199098
Assumptions my friend. You need to qualify your conclusion. The underlying and rarely discussed philosophy of math would be that it is assumed that the overall evaluation of any formula evaluates to a true proposition.

For example: when given an equation like 4 + x = 10, we assume four things. 1.The formula is satisfiable 2.the overall evaluation of the formula is logically equivalent to "true" 3.the number represented are consistent with traditional mathematics, and 4.traditional mathematics provides the exact same answer consistently.

Thus, if any of these assumptions prove to be false, then any answers reached are simply undefined by math.

So to be totally consistent, any conclusion you reach would technically not stand by itself. Conclusions reached in mathematics remain only guaranteed by the confines of mathematics. Every problem you ever solve in math, science, politics, anything at all is indefinite and is possibly totally meaningless.

What I mean to say is, kill yourself faggot.

[Anonymous No.9199415]

>>9199054
Depend on what 0 = ?

[Anonymous No.9199418]

>>9199415
No it does not

[Anonymous No.9199435]

>>9199418
Yes it does faggot, if 0 = 00, then the answer is 1111, if 0 = 0 then the answer is 121.

[Anonymous No.9199448]

>>9199435
Really? Then tell me what is x in 1,2,3,4,5, x , because I say it ca be literally any number..

[Anonymous No.9199465]

https://oeis.org/search?q=11%2C22%2C33%2C44%2C55%2C66&language=english&go=Search

[Anonymous No.9199501]

>>9199054
There's no correct answer.

[Anonymous No.9199521]

>>9199501
This

[Anonymous No.9200850]

It's, 1111, of course. Take what's on the left side and copy it two times to the right side.

You could claim it's 121, but that would make the pattern more complicated.
1. You'd need to assume that the symbols are numbers. In contrast, ´1111' works for any symbols.
2. You'd need to use multiplication, which is more complex operation than to just copy values.
3. All the symbols in your answer are not identical, unlike in the examples and in the proposed 11 = 1111.

And you're always supposed to pick the simplest explanation.

[Anonymous No.9200911]

>>9199435
But 00 is the same as 0

[Anonymous No.9200913]

>>9200850
The simplest explanation is that the relation is symmetric and thus 11 = 1

[Anonymous No.9200918]

>>9199054
The answer should be 1.
Without stating any inherent rules here, it could also be 121 as well as 1111. You would have to know what 10 equals in order to confirm one of the latter 2 answers so my assumption would be that the answer is 1.

[Anonymous No.9200920]

>>9199054
Not enough information given. With what we see in that pic it could be:
121
1111
112
1
All of these answers apply depending on what operations you apply to the first number to get the second number, and there are several different operations that will lead to the same answers shown in the forst couple “equations”. Get this Facebook brainlet normie meme shit off muh 4chan.

[Anonymous No.9200929]

>>9200920
t. someone who failed IQ tests

If there are multiple possible answers, always choose the simplest explanation

[Anonymous No.9200940]

>>9199073
Only correct answer ITT; rest are brainlets.

>>9199081
There is nothing newly defined, you could with that logic also ask if a 6 is really a 6 has some other value that is newly defined. This logic would make the whole test pointless.

[Anonymous No.9200943]

>>9199054
Well What is 10 then?

[Anonymous No.9200952]

>>9199054
its 1 you stupid fuck
it cant be 121 because some shithead gonna cherry pick muh 1111 so we go with the first argument 1 = 11 because its the only way to solve it

[Anonymous No.9201050]

>>9200943
You don't get to ask questions. If that is supposed to be your answer, it is wrong

[Anonymous No.9201107]

>>9200913
Wrong.

In all the examples, the left side of ´=' has less symbols than the right side. Thus the simplest explanation assumes that there won't be an exception to this rule.

Your problem is that you use the interpretation of ´=' that was taught to you in school. You're supposed to take puzzles like this precisely like they are presented to you: Symmetry is not implied anywhere.

[Anonymous No.9201114]

>>9199054
1111

[Anonymous No.9201299]

>>9200929
141 on a psychiatrist administered test. So no. Also the simplest explanation is that its the first number written out twice to get the second number, but thats just retarded. The only correct answer is that there are multiple answers, we cant narrow it down to one “best” answer without more information.

[Anonymous No.9201363]

But 1/=11
And 2/=22
This is wrong. It's all wrong.

[Anonymous No.9203742]

>>9199399
Stop conflating semantics with mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9203752]

>>9200920
Why not 111?

[Anonymous No.9204704]

>>9199101
>shit literally says 1 = 11

>HURR DURR 11 = 112
what the FUCK is wrong with you fucking BRAINLETS

[Anonymous No.9204730]

>>9200929
>IQ tests
Psychobabble

[Anonymous No.9205622]

>>9199081
>>9200940
found the engineering tards

A relation MUST be symmetric for it to actually be a relation ie x MUST equal x

if it is not a relation you cannot use the equality sign

[Anonymous No.9206575]

Iz 121 giv me nobel plz

[Anonymous No.9206651]

>>9199054
1

[Anonymous No.9206936]

>>9199293
>hurr there's no point in trying to continue the pattern because it's possible the pattern could be broken/nonexistent
look, it's just a logic puzzle
the only point is to show how good your pattern recognition skills are, or to improve them

[Anonymous No.9207908]

>>9199081
>set theory
a new brainlet has been discovered

[Anonymous No.9207914]

-1/12

[Anonymous No.9207935]

>>9205622
>symmetry is reflexive
>all relations are reflexive
>notations have intrinsic properties

[Anonymous No.9207941]

>>9206936
fuck off you imbecile
there are no canonical patterns that you can extrapolate from finite sequences, no matter how much you delude yourself into thinking "hurr muh pattern recognition"

[Anonymous No.9207984]

>>9206651
It's not '1'. The numbers on the left column is obviously multiplied by '11' to come up with the values on the right column.
>1 (11) = 11
>2 (11) = 22
>3 (11) = 33
>4 (11) = 44
>5 (11) = 55
>6 (11) = 66
So...
>11 (11) = 121

>>9100101
Good fucking Lord... Common Core, everybody. If you're analyzing for patterns, it helps to find what is common among all the numbers/groups of numbers with enough information, then use what you've found out to solve the one without enough info. In this case, it seems that from '1 = 11' to '6 = 66', dividing the numbers on the right column with the numbers on the left column will always yield '11'; when you multiply the numbers on the left with '11', you get the same values on the right column. So you multiply '11' with '11', as the multiplier '11' is what's common with the entire group of numbers, and you get '121'.

[Anonymous No.9207992]

>>9207984
you don't deserve a thoughtful answer

[Anonymous No.9208003]

>>9207992
Cancer removed

[Anonymous No.9208017]

>>9208003
it's over the top, intentionally
notice the ugly ass irregular fonts? the bright distracting colors?
it's mocking, it's self-aware. don't touch it.

[Anonymous No.9208206]

>>9208017
The beauty of 90's web design.

[Anonymous No.9208339]

>>9199054
Clearly it's eleventy eleven

[Anonymous No.9209156]

>>9199098
>>9200940
>>9205622
>>9207908
Isolate these retards.
Reflexivity in equality doesn't apply to every field.

[Anonymous No.9209159]

>>9209156
Symmetricity*

[Anonymous No.9209186]

20
20
8

gg ez

[Anonymous No.9209294]

>>9209186
8

[Anonymous No.9209311]

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+11%3D%3F

11 is an odd number.
Open code
11 has the unique representation 11 = 1^2 + 1^2 + 3^2 as a sum of 3 squares.
Open code
11 is the 5th Lucas number (L_5).
Open code
11 is the number of integer partitions of 6 (p(6)).
Open code
11 and 13 form a twin prime pair.
11 is a Sophie Germain prime, since 2 11 + 1 = 23 is also prime.
Open code
The ring of integers of the field Q(sqrt(-11)) has unique factorization, and e^(π sqrt(22))≈2508951.9983 is an associated near-integer.

[Anonymous No.9209638]

>>9209186
48

[Anonymous No.9210114]

>>9199081
the interpretation of = is the same in all models of set theory, and it is ALWAYS symmetric
sounds like you need to study set theory, sweety

[Anonymous No.9210120]

>>9209156
name a single one where it doesn't apply
i'll wait

[Anonymous No.9210140]

>>9199354
b-but it's got all the essential axioms for a well-balanced, incomplete theory of mathematics ;~;

[Anonymous No.9210142]

>>9199501
yeah there is
It's the one i'm thinking of heh gotcha ;v)

[Carbon No.9210499]

>>9199054
not well defined
also nonsense
if they used f of x and wanted you to find the function, they should have used it

[Anonymous No.9210524]

>>9209186
It's just 8 because there is no equals sign on the ends of the first two lines and no addition signs linking the first two lines together and to the third line.

[Anonymous No.9210721]

>>9199073
If we assume that 1=11=121 then wouldn't
121 be the correct answer ?

You could also have 1=11=1111.

So 11=1 is technically correct but since the problem clearly demonstrates the growth
aspect of the series 121 or 1111 are actually better answers.

[Anonymous No.9210742]

>>9210721
1111 is not a good answer unless you permit trick question style.
That is, a=aa, b=bb... etc, could be used to pose that type of pattern.

So 121 is the best answer, but the problem is
arguably overall too tricky and/or ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.9211375]

You all failed. The solution is that the test is obviously bullshit and if you spend time thinking about it you're not a genius.

[Anonymous No.9212292]

1

[Anonymous No.9212478]

>>9199054
1111 you're obviously concatenating the number to itself

[Anonymous No.9212485]

>>9199054

77 fuckers the answer is 77

[Anonymous No.9213068]

>>9199054
1 does not equal 11
This is just made up bullshit

[Anonymous No.9213587]

>>9207992
But the Lagrange polynomial for this sequence is 2x-1. What are they doing here?

[Anonymous No.9213592]

>>9199060
>>9199073
>>9199081
>>9199101
>>9199103
>>9199109

It's obviously 9 you retards

[Anonymous No.9213597]

>>9208003
Meme Doggo is the best you fucking negro

[Anonymous No.9213667]

>>9200929
> some mathematical functions are objectively simpler than others

literally a raging mongoloid

[Anonymous No.9213688]

>>9213587
Nevermind, they randomly chose 217341