A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"

 Posts: 368
 Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:54 am
A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
[Mod note: Topic split from here:
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 03#p341152
The ridle is this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 047&type=3 ]
Is it not 96?
http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 03#p341152
The ridle is this: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 047&type=3 ]
Is it not 96?
Relax! Smile From The Heart!
There is a difference between the Mundane and the Transcendental. If you purposefully confuse them, I will ignore you, you nihilist.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace. There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge. There is no Passion, there is Serenity. There is no Death, there is the Force.
There is a difference between the Mundane and the Transcendental. If you purposefully confuse them, I will ignore you, you nihilist.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace. There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge. There is no Passion, there is Serenity. There is no Death, there is the Force.
Re: DunningKruger Effect
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: DunningKruger Effect
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm going with 19. The first equation is true (1+4=5) and the other two are false.AlexMcLeod wrote:Is it not 96?
Re: DunningKruger Effect
19 is a good answer, because unlike 40 and 96 it's mathematically correct. But it does destroy the beauty of the riddle, saying lines 2 and 3 are plainly wrong. There is another answer that is both mathematically correct and leaves the riddle intact...
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: DunningKruger Effect
96 does not mean answers are mathematically incorrect. In programming terms, it merely means the '+' operation was overridden with another operation. For example:
4 + 1 = 5
But when + is overridden with the operation b + (a*b), unless a<b, then a * (b*a) then the outcomes are completely different:
(4*1) + 1 = 5
(2*5) + 2 = 12
(3*6) + 3 = 21
(8*11) + 8 = 96
No need to mathematically disregard any of the abswers.
4 + 1 = 5
But when + is overridden with the operation b + (a*b), unless a<b, then a * (b*a) then the outcomes are completely different:
(4*1) + 1 = 5
(2*5) + 2 = 12
(3*6) + 3 = 21
(8*11) + 8 = 96
No need to mathematically disregard any of the abswers.
Re: DunningKruger Effect
I remember when I was studying applied mathematics my teacher got up one day and wrote on the board:
1 + 1 = 0
He then went about showing how:
1+ the square root of 1 (which happens to be 1 or 1) = 2 OR 0
Since then, even a basic set of equations like that one shown in the example (where some people assumed that the middle two equations were false) take on a whole new meaning.
Instead of assuming the two middle equations were (technically) wrong (which they are, since they are basic additions), I instantly started looking for a pattern.
1 + 1 = 0
He then went about showing how:
1+ the square root of 1 (which happens to be 1 or 1) = 2 OR 0
Since then, even a basic set of equations like that one shown in the example (where some people assumed that the middle two equations were false) take on a whole new meaning.
Instead of assuming the two middle equations were (technically) wrong (which they are, since they are basic additions), I instantly started looking for a pattern.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
I didn't really mean to start a discussion about the riddle, it was more about how people react to it on facebook. Btw the solution has long been published, and it leaves the integrity of the "+" and "=" signs intact. All you need to do is perform a google search or visit Randall Jones' facebook profile.
Of course the basic rules of arithmetics are based on definitions and you can redefine everything to mean everything, it's just not much of a math riddle anymore if you proceed like that.
Of course the basic rules of arithmetics are based on definitions and you can redefine everything to mean everything, it's just not much of a math riddle anymore if you proceed like that.
"I struggled with some demons, They were middle class and tame..." L. Cohen
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
No need to dismiss those other 2 solutions as invalid math, while championing your own that you haven't even defined. In defense of the redefining "+" solution, mathematics & computer science are intricately linked, completing a CS degree usually meets the requirements for a math minor. Overloading functions is precisely how things get done in many programming languages. Just because it's not your preferred field of mathematics doesn't make the cs solution any less a valid form of mathematics. Saying it's not mathematics or valid mathematics is hardly being respectful, as much as you want to dodge a conversation on this.emaho wrote:Of course the basic rules of arithmetics are based on definitions and you can redefine everything to mean everything, it's just not much of a math riddle anymore if you proceed like that.
Here's a link to another solution:
https://eowynsedcstuff.wordpress.com/20 ... 40nor96/
This solution assumes changing the bases of the numbers without explicitly stating it, which can be argued as being invalid from a mathematics standpoint. Also, if you read the comments, it seems that the general consensus is that there is no determinate answer. The author of this solution even states: “the entire thing is rather a hoax or psychological test than a mathematical riddle”.
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
You could just spare us the effort...emaho wrote:All you need to do is perform a google search or visit Randall Jones' facebook profile.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
The link I posted was Randall Jones' own endorsed "solution", but the comments on it will show you that the riddle hardly has a single solution.Sherab Dorje wrote:You could just spare us the effort...emaho wrote:All you need to do is perform a google search or visit Randall Jones' facebook profile.

 Posts: 368
 Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:54 am
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
Gosh, I almost forgot that there was a time I didn't think you could just redefine the plus operator.
Either way, if you follow the pattern that people use to get 40, you have to fill in the missing equations leading up to the final one. If you do, the answer is also 96.
Honestly, 201 is a bit of a stretch. Especially since you have to ignore the missing equations to reach that conclusion.
In order to get 19, you have to assume that = is not one of its two established definitions. That is, equality or assignment. Since there is a long history of playing with the plus operator, and not with the equal sign, I'd prefer not to make that assumption.
Either way, if you follow the pattern that people use to get 40, you have to fill in the missing equations leading up to the final one. If you do, the answer is also 96.
Honestly, 201 is a bit of a stretch. Especially since you have to ignore the missing equations to reach that conclusion.
In order to get 19, you have to assume that = is not one of its two established definitions. That is, equality or assignment. Since there is a long history of playing with the plus operator, and not with the equal sign, I'd prefer not to make that assumption.
Relax! Smile From The Heart!
There is a difference between the Mundane and the Transcendental. If you purposefully confuse them, I will ignore you, you nihilist.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace. There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge. There is no Passion, there is Serenity. There is no Death, there is the Force.
There is a difference between the Mundane and the Transcendental. If you purposefully confuse them, I will ignore you, you nihilist.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace. There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge. There is no Passion, there is Serenity. There is no Death, there is the Force.
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
Quinary, huh? Who would've guessed? Completely trapped in the decimal thinking or what?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Jetsun Milarepa 10521135 CE
"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source  The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde
Re: A Ridle, split from "DunningKruger Effect"
lol, interesting..cant delete my post..a ridle.. but nice posting!
Another log on the fire,
10,000 frogs singing in the rain,
burst into flames.
 Linda Anderson
10,000 frogs singing in the rain,
burst into flames.
 Linda Anderson
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests