/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9842747]

What the fuck is going on here?

[Anonymous No.9842754]

>>9842747
Ask solar cells guy lmao
This prick is fucking dodging

[Anonymous No.9842770]

>>9842747
>What the fuck is going on here?
not science or math

[Anonymous No.9842772]

>>9842747
Pseudoscience

[Anonymous No.9842773]

>>9842754
>Ask solar cells guy lmao
who?

[Anonymous No.9842785]

>>9842747
IMO:
1) 16%
2) 35%
3) 7%
4) 3%
5) 39%

[Anonymous No.9842786]

>>9842773
He's not gonna answer, he's gonna pretend to be afk because he's busy trying to score above 120 on the iq test making multiple attempts

[Anonymous No.9843127]

3 intersecting lines = 1 pattern. Therefore we can remove no.2 as a possible answer. The next pattern is 3 square like shapes and 3 circle like shapes. See the two circles at the top of that oval thing on the left? Add those two to the bottom circle with the cross in it. Those two parts of the matrice are mixtures of squares and circles that both add up to 3 respectively. The cross + the oval shape + the square = 3 square like shapes. 2 basic circles + 1 circle = 3 circle like shapes. So now that leaves us with the 2 linked circles and the linked rectangle shape in the middle. We can also safely eliminate 3 and 4 as possible answers because those answers have no correlation to any of the patterns. We can also safely eliminate 1 because 1 is intersecting lines and we already have a completed pattern for that. That leaves us with 5 as the most logically sound answer and that also completes the pattern of linked shapes.

Sorry about the explanation of it, it was much more simple in my head and I probably didn't articulate it properly.

[Anonymous No.9843240]

>>9842785
Nope
3) 50%
5) 50%

[Anonymous No.9843247]

>>9842747
5

[Anonymous No.9843377]

>>9842747
2

[Anonymous No.9843502]

>>9843127
Thanks for being the only guy to provide an explanation, but I couldn't follow that at all, sorry.

[Anonymous No.9843661]

>>9842747
Everyone in this thread is stupid. These are demonic sigils, beelzebub, satan, duriel, lucifer, akanosh, yomur, hastur, baal. So the missing option should be the 9th prince of hell, which is 1, dagon. It's that fucking easy.

[Anonymous No.9843667]

>>9842747
See:
>>9842476
>>9842877

[Anonymous No.9843673]

Found a swedish thread discussing this question:
https://www.garaget.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=113967&p=2

The most succinct answer I've seen:
>In the first and second row, the third column contains a figure that is included in the second column but is not included in the first column.

So the answer would be 2, which is consistent with the correct answer as per >>9842877

[Anonymous No.9843675]

>mfw my brain popped up with 5 instantly without reasoning
I guess this is why I am able to solve problems but struggle explaining it to other people.

[Anonymous No.9843688]

>>9843673
But the vertical line from the + is in the first figure as well.
By that logic is should be 3, because that doesn't contain a verticel line but contains a horizontal line

[Anonymous No.9843690]

>>9843675
Commonly referred to as autism.

[Anonymous No.9843694]

>>9843673
>So the answer would be 2, which is consistent with the correct answer as per >>9842877
You need to add 1 to the elements in the solution array (they start at 0, not 1).

>>9843688
>By that logic is should be 3
Which is indeed the correct answer.

[Anonymous No.9843696]

there is never a true 'correct' answer for IQ test questions, they're essentially rorschach tests where everything is up to interpretation

[Anonymous No.9843699]

>>9843502
Okay so look at my image. The pattern is 3 irregular; so not in a diagonal, row or column but irregularly placed around the matrice. The images in each pattern are also similar in shape.

Black 1-3 = Intersecting lines pattern. A line intersecting a circle. Also add the 4 semi-circles in black 3 and you get black 1. Add the 2 circles in black 1 and you get black 2.

Red 1-3 = 3 circle shapes + 3 square shapes. Look at the two small circles in 1, add that to 2 and you have 3 circle-like shapes. Now look at the cross, the square and the two ovals and you have 3 square-like shapes.

blue 1-3 = 3 linked shapes. blue 2 is a mixture of blue 1 and blue 3

[Anonymous No.9843703]

>>9843699
You're making up rules as you go along.

>Red 1-3 = 3 circle shapes + 3 square shapes.
This one isn't even true. What are you even counting?

[Anonymous No.9843706]

>>9843696
it should probably be replaced with open-ended puzzles were you're like, given 20 pieces of pipe and have to construct a pipeline that can access as much water as possible, or something else that has both degrees of success and a non-arbitrary solution.

[Anonymous No.9843709]

>>9843703
Oval shapes = 1 square-like shape
Square = 1 square-like shape
Cross = 1 square-like shape

small circle = 1 circle shape
small circle = 1 circle shape
Big circle = 1 circle shape

The two ovals are like the cross and the cross is like the square

[Anonymous No.9843713]

>>9843709
>an oval is like a square
>a cross is like a square

[Anonymous No.9843719]

>>9843713
yes, it's "like" a square, it's not exactly a square. The two ovals become a single shape that makes the same general shape that a cross does

You don't understand abstract connections well, do you? This ones a bit more advanced than the " 3 triangles, 3 square and 3 circles" matrices that you usually do.

[Anonymous No.9843721]

>>9842747
Diagonal, from top left to bottom right, it's a bunch of symmetrical repeating columns

The answer is simular to the top left in terms of the properties that all of those have in common, aka 4

[Anonymous No.9843726]

>>9842747
1 anyone says otherwise is a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9843728]

>>9843240
Nope
1) 80%
2) 20%

[Anonymous No.9843733]

>>9843694
>Which is indeed the correct answer.
Well in that case the puzzle is fucking retarded.
It's just "add as much useless information as possible and hope somebody recognizes the pattern you thought of, not the shitton of patterns you added accidentally"

[Anonymous No.9843735]

>>9843719
>yes, it's "like" a square
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.9843737]

>>9843733
If you're >>9843699 & >>9843719 you should know that you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.9843742]

>>9843737
You are retarded because you cannot grasp abstract concepts. Prove me wrong if I'm so retarded. What's the right answer and how did you get it? Go.

[Anonymous No.9843745]

>>9843742
>Intersecting lines pattern
>pull them apart here, put them back together there
>a cross is like a square
>this block is a mix of those two blocks
>all just because
You didn't find any pattern. You're pulling shit out of your ass in an ad-hoc manner.

[Anonymous No.9843748]

>>9843745
Also, the right answer is the triangle. Read the posts upthread (and the ones in the other thread).
You might learn something.

[Anonymous No.9843752]

>>9843745
Unless you can come up with a better answer, your opinion means nothing. I'm sorry you can't grasp abstract concepts easily. Also I am not>>9843733

[Anonymous No.9843787]

>>9843690
But I'm not an autist, anon (have been tested)

[Anonymous No.9843852]

There is no (row) by row or (column) by column generating rule. You have 9 boxes and N objects which are distributed among them.

One object count could be as follows:

>3 lines (shortest one in the bottom-left box, medium length in the top-middle box, longest one in the top-right box)
>3 large circles (1 top-left, 1 top-middle, 1 bottom-middle)
>3 medium sized circles (2 bottom-left, 1 top-left)
>2 small circles (middle-left box)
>2 large ovals (middle-left box)
>2 broken circles (top-right box)
>1 cross (bottom-middle box)
>1 rectangle/square (middle-right box)
>1 zig-zag line thing (central box)

From this we can deduce that there are at most 3 of each type of object (assuming it is the correct way to count the objects). Therefore:

>Option (1) cannot be true because that would give us 4 broken circles
>Option (2) cannot be true because that would give us 4 large circles
>Option (4) cannot be true because that would give us 4 medium sized circles

But this assumes that the central box contains only 1 object. It may in fact contain three: 1 rectangle, and two oval sector contours.
In that case, the boxes already have 2 rectangles, and option (5) wouldn't be a viable answer because that would give us 4 in total.

A third way to count how many objects there are in the collection is to be very exact and note that the circles actually have slightly different radii, so you get 1 very large circle (bottom-middle box), 2 large circles (inside the first two top row boxes), 1 medium-large circle (top-left box), and 2 medium-small circles (bottom-left box). This would also give you 1 of each type of line.
Assuming this is the correct way to count the objects, there are at most 2 of each type of object, wherefrom options (1) and (3) are the only possible answers.
(And similarly, depending on how we count what's in box 2-1.)

But option (3) is the only one that is compatible with every way of counting the objects. Ergo, the triangle is the most plausible answer.

[Anonymous No.9843856]

>>9843852
t. >>9842877

[Anonymous No.9843867]

>>9843852
There are at least 3 other ways of counting the objects depending on how you treat the broken circles and such which I didn't bother with because the answer is the same, in that the triangle is a viable answer every time.

The rule anon brings up here >>9843673 seems tenuous to me.

[Anonymous No.9843896]

>>9843867
>The rule anon brings up here >>9843673 seems tenuous to me.
Because it doesn't give a unique answer. Option (1) is also compatible with that rule for example. How do you decide between (1) and (3)? If there is some sequential rule like this at work, you'd expect the possible answer to be unique.
Of course, it is also possible that there is in fact some rule that generates the last block from (some of) the previous ones and my heuristic converged on the "correct" answer by accident.

I skimmed through the Swedish thread anon posted above and all sequential generative rules given seem pretty pulled-by-the-hair to me.