Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

6

 

If you add 2 to the second operand, you get:-

 

3 + 6

5 + 8

1 + 5

 

Doing that allows you do change the additions (which would never work to produce those results) for multiplications.

 

 

3 x 6 = 18

5 x 8 = 40

1 x 5 = 5

 

Adding 1 to the first two results gives you 19 & 41.

 

Apply the same logic to the last result and you get 6.

Posted
6

 

If you add 2 to the second operand, you get:-

 

3 + 6

5 + 8

1 + 5

 

Doing that allows you do change the additions (which would never work to produce those results) for multiplications.

 

 

3 x 6 = 18

5 x 8 = 40

1 x 5 = 5

 

Adding 1 to the first two results gives you 19 & 41.

 

Apply the same logic to the last result and you get 6.

 

3 + 4(4) = 19

5 + 6(6) = 41

1 + 3(3) = ?

Posted
In other news, this is a stupid question with multiple answers :lol:

 

Which, frankly, describes LinkedIn.

 

Gets more and more like retard facebook everyday.

 

The first time I see a cat video / lolcatz on LinkedIn it will be gone....

Posted (edited)
10.

 

But it wasn't easy!

 

Yes it was........kindergarden stuff

 

Think it appears in a selection test for the selection test for the selection test for some big firm or other, but then these lines are preceeded by 1+2=5 which takes away the multiple answers I think.

Edited by Window Cleaner
Posted
Yes it was........kindergarden stuff

 

Think it appears in a selection test for the selection test for the selection test for some big firm or other, but then these lines are preceeded by 1+2=5 which takes away the multiple answers I think.

 

So somebody has invented a whole new mathematical or logical notation which just happens to look like the traditional one that has been in use for generations. If they are not going to tell us the syntax then any answer is a valid one since we can all make up our own alternatives. These sort of questions should be treated with the disdain that they deserve.

Posted
So somebody has invented a whole new mathematical or logical notation which just happens to look like the traditional one that has been in use for generations. If they are not going to tell us the syntax then any answer is a valid one since we can all make up our own alternatives. These sort of questions should be treated with the disdain that they deserve.

 

Maths is often like that. One of the legacies of Turing (and others) is to think of maths as pattern, and sometimes bits of the pattern are missing.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...