A little Problem...
-
I guess we need another problem now.
If I want to buy seven rabbits and a half, and each rabbit and a half costs one dollar and a half, how much do I have to pay?
-
Remus never said the problem gave you:
Level 99
Magic 100
Luck 1,000,000For these problems when you say "minumum" it means the minimum without luck and magic.
-
@ecuadorian said:
Remus never said the problem gave you:
Level 99
Magic 100
Luck 1,000,000For these problems when you say "minumum" it means the minimum without luck and magic.
right, i agree and hope that's how it is..
but - there's nothing worse than someone asking you a logic question only to find out it was really some weak play_on_words type of thing..
(well, i guess i can think of worse things but...
)someone has to build up some cred with these types of questions with me or i have to try to eliminate the loop holes first..
so who has another one?
-
@ecuadorian said:
I guess we need another problem now.
If I want to buy seven rabbits and a half, and each rabbit and a half costs one dollar and a half, how much do I have to pay?
$7.50
dividing by 1.5 then multiplying by 1.5 cancel each other out so it's a buck per rabbit.
-
Yup. Most people start to do strange calculations with that one.
-
7.5/1.5=5
-
Well done people, its not a trick question: 2 is the correct answer as ecuadorian said (and the scales are the 1st type you posted jeff.)
edit: doh, put 3 instead of 2. Corrected.
-
I'd have said $10.50, Miguel. You said 7 rabbits and a half...that's 7 whole rabbits plus a half rabbit. Given, that in Ecuador, you apparently sell rabbits in the odd amount of 1.5 rabbits, you'd need to buy 7 portions of them to get 7 whole rabbits...then have a whole lot of half-rabbits left over.
I always was something of a pedant. -
I agree with Eric - go and see a doctor, Remus. And when you've done so, also a psychiatrist (since who cares which ball weighs slightly more or less?)
-
Who cares! what do you mean who cares?! we're addressing fundamental problems in comparative ball analysis and scalar logic
-
Another one:I have two jars full of a liquid amoebas eat. These amoebas multiply by 2 every three minutes. Jar A starts with two amoebas and after two hours it's full of them. Jar B starts with just one. How much time will it take it to fill?
-
2 hours 3 minutes, assuming the jars are the same size.
reasoning: after 3 minutes it will have multiplied, so you'll have 2 amoebas and be left with the same starting conditions you had in jar A.
-
Anyone has another one? -
@remus said:
Well done people, its not a trick question: 3 is the correct answer as ecuadorian said (and the scales are the 1st type you posted jeff.)
No, Remus, two weighings is enough, when you start with the 3+3 method I think Jeff posted first:
First weighing: You select randomly 3+3 balls and weigh them. The next step depends on your result.
Second weighing: If the 6 balls were of equal weight you weigh the 2 balls left, the heavier is one of them. Otherwise, you choose randomly 2 balls out of the heavier set of 3 and weigh them. If they are equal, the heavy one is the one left out.
In real life, figuring this out would probably take more time than to weigh the balls in three steps
Anssi -
About the first problem with this and 12 same aspect objects (one is different weight)
You must say what is the different object and if it's less or more weight than the current!
In how many minimum weigh-in can you made that?
Whithout see result on the Net of course!
-
pilou
that would take 3 weighings
6 vs 6 then
3 vs 3 then
1 vs 1[or 5vs5, 2 vs 2, 1 vs 1 leaving the possibility that you might find it in 2 tries if the 5 vs 5 results are the same]
could also do:
4vs4
2vs2
1vs1
which still needs 3 weighings -
@xrok1 said:
7.5/1.5=5
while that is true, it's not the proper answer to the rabbit question.
a different way to think about that one is to first ignore the total amount of rabbits and figure out the cost first:
a rabbit and a half costs a dollar and a half therefore one rabbit costs one dollar.. so 7.5 rabbits costs $7.5
-
OK now if you model and render the eight balls and seven rabbits, the price of the rabbits will go up,(because thats going to take a while, and time is money) and the weight of the balls will vary based on the visual weight they are allotted, now things are different! (oh render engine of your choice by the way
) -
@ Jeff
Number's 3 answer is good but explanation seems lack of precision and sybilline for external visitor
What about object number 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12?
Does is it less or more heavy or current? -
@unknownuser said:
@ Jeff
Number's 3 answer is good but explanation seems lack of precision and sybilline for external visitor
What about object number 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12?
Does is it less or more heavy or current?haha..
i'm definitely not the best at explaining myself.. if i tried to explain using object numbers, it would get a lot more confusing i thinkbut here goes an example.. let's say the heavier object is #9
place objects 1-6 on one side then objects 7-12 on the other.. 7-12 will weigh more so that eliminates objects 1-6
place 7,8, & 9 on one side then 10, 11, & 12 on the other.. 7-9 will weigh more so that eliminates 10-12..
place 7 on one side and 8 on the other... they weigh the same so that means 9 is the oddball.
[EDIT] and then as Anssi said, in real life, you know you're going to test #9 against some of the other objects so the real world answer is at least 4 if not more
Advertisement