# simple math (

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### riChubby

Registered Member
Example:
[3-5](7-1) > [2-1](4-0) = [6-5](28-0)

Use the example to solve:
[6-a](2-4) > [b-3](c-5) = [12-9](20-d)

What numbers do a,b,c and d stand for? Please explain how you got your answers using the example given. Thank you.

This really isn't the place to get your school homework done.
If you need help, try putting your own solution down first, and then we might be able to advise where you're going wrong. But doing your schoolwork for you...? Nah.
This problem really is simple, so give it a go. Who knows, you may actually learn something by trying.

I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?

I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?
They mean community college is too expensive when your gpa is about 2.2 you’ve been cheating on your classmates as well as your girlfriend.

Biden isn’t going to save you because you didn’t even get the pell grant… lol

I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?
You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem. The notation is actually irrelevant to the answer, beyond being internally consistent.
Are you actually struggling with the question as to not know the answer? Maybe you, too, should have a go, and we can provide advice to then help?

You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem. The notation is actually irrelevant to the answer, beyond being internally consistent.
I don't understand the notation. Are the square and round brackets significant? What do they mean?

You're over-thinking what is a decidedly easy problem.
Please explain it, the homework was due Tuesday.

I think this is nonsense.

Even if we simplify it:

a > b = c isn't an equation.

And its doubly nonsense if b and c resolve to be unequal as in the OP.

Last edited:
Sheesh.
Really???

Okay, let's look at the example:
You have the expression [w1-x1](y1-z1) > [w2-x2](y2-z2) = [w3-x3](y3-z3)

It's as sime.as w1*w2=w3; x1*x2=x3; etc.

In the example:
3*2=6
5*1=5
7*4=28
1*0=0

Repeat that same logic for the question to get your a, b, c, and d.

Simples.
See, you don't have to understand what the symbols specifically mean, just look at what's actually going on.

Genuinely surprised you lot struggled.

Sheesh.
Really???

Okay, let's look at the example:
You have the expression [w1-x1](y1-z1) > [w2-x2](y2-z2) = [w3-x3](y3-z3)

It's as sime.as w1*w2=w3; x1*x2=x3; etc.

In the example:
3*2=6
5*1=5
7*4=28
1*0=0

Repeat that same logic for the question to get your a, b, c, and d.

Simples.
See, you don't have to understand what the symbols specifically mean, just look at what's actually going on.

Genuinely surprised you lot struggled.

How did you reconcile the 'a > b = c'?
Did you just ignore it?

How did you reconcile the 'a > b = c'?
Did you just ignore it?
Not initially, no.
First I looked at the question and realised, as most have, that assuming the operator ">" has the same meaning as in usual maths, the example is nonsense. So I dropped that assumption off the bat.
Once I did that I looked at the example and tried to see what logic there was between the left-hand side and the right-hand side.
It's then easy (or should be) to see what is going on, and that the ">" therefore means "treat the numbers in brackets as if in a single array in that order, and calculate the dot product of the two arrays using the same notation" - or words to that effect.
But there's actually no need to define the operator as specifically, just work out what it means for the relationship between the LHS numbers and the RHS, and apply to the question.

If there were multiple operators in the example, and they were repositioned in the actual question, then one would need to understand (presumably from any examples) what the operators do actually mean within the question. But in this case there is no need to do that.

So the trick these sorts of questions is not necessarily to ignore the operator (as more complex such questions would require you to work out what they mean), but to not assume it means what you initially think it does.

Doe that make sense?

Not initially, no.
First I looked at the question and realised, as most have, that assuming the operator ">" has the same meaning as in usual maths, the example is nonsense. So I dropped that assumption off the bat.
And then you dropped the assumption that the various forms of brackets are also meaningful?

There's a lot of interpretation required to make sense of this.

Occam's Razor suggests to me it's trolling, perhaps even a sock of our old friend with the math nonsense.

And then you dropped the assumption that the various forms of brackets are also meaningful?
Once you note that the symbols are consistent in the LHS and RHS in both the example and question, and that there's an obvious logic between the numbers on the LHS and RHS, the symbols ultimately become not meaningless per se but simply irrelevant.
[/quote]There's a lot of interpretation required to make sense of this.[/quote]I rather think it's the opposite: it requires a lack of a priori assumption, and a lack of interpretation of the detailed symbols, and instead just a recognition of the pattern of the fuller picture. The confusion really only comes in when you have an a priori assumption of meaning of the symbols and can't drop them when they result in nonsense.
Occam's Razor suggests to me it's trolling, perhaps even a sock of our old friend with the math nonsense.
It may ultimately be, but I've seen plenty of these types of questions in my time, where it's more about pattern recognition than knowing maths. After all, in this you only need to know multiplication, and the rest is just recognising the pattern between the LHS and RHS.
To me it seems a very simple maths/logic/pattern-recognition/IQ-type question with which the poster struggled and genuinely sought quick help. I see nothing trollish about this, just someone looking for us to do their homework.

Further, rejecting something as being posted in bad faith seemingly because you can't get your head round it seems... childish... if you don't mind me saying so. Instead, why not just put your hands up in good grace and admit that you were defeated, but that in understanding the solution you may have learned a new way to look at and tackle such problems? If that is indeed the case.

Further, rejecting something as being posted in bad faith seemingly because you can't get your head round it seems... childish...
This seems to have the onus in the wrong place. You put the onus for intelligibility on the reader instead of the writer.

Instead, why not just put your hands up in good grace and admit that you were defeated, but that in understanding the solution you may have learned a new way to look at and tackle such problems? If that is indeed the case.
I wasn't defeated; I chose not to freely interpret without grounds. We do a lot of homework helping over on PF and have learned that poorly-formed posts and subsequent assumptions hurt more than help.

a lack of a priori assumption,
In math, more than anywhere, if you can't rely on clarity of convention then the world burns.

rest is just recognising the pattern between the LHS and RHS.
But that isn't the pattern, is it?
It's LHS, middle and RHS.

How can you simply ignore a third hand?

I am dubious as to your logic that a guess is better than no answer at all, but YMMV.

This seems to have the onus in the wrong place. You put the onus for intelligibility on the reader instead of the writer.
Surely the assumption with all homework questions is that the question IS intelligible (e.g. internally consistent). That surely is the minimum expectation, which if you're not going to grant would seem to indicate where any bad faith actually lies.
So, once we start with the assumption that the question is internally consistent, intelligible, etc, we can move on to trying to figure out the answer. Or at least an answer.
I wasn't defeated; I chose not to freely interpret without grounds.
Sure, and in the challenge to come up with an answer, not doing so means defeat. Whether that's because you found the question nonsense (due to the a priori assumptions you were working with and sticking to) or because of other reasons, the result is the same: "nil points" (as the UK seemed to have mastered getting until the aberration of last year).
We do a lot of homework helping over on PF and have learned that poorly-formed posts and subsequent assumptions hurt more than help.
It wasn't poorly-formed. Thinking it to be such is why you were defeated in being able/willing to provide an answer. You looked at it, saw it didn't fit your a priori assumptions, but found yourself unable/unwilling to progress.
In math, more than anywhere, if you can't rely on clarity of convention then the world burns.
The terms are internally consistent within the question. That's all that is required. The idea of the exercise is to take the example, analyse it, and apply it to the question to get the answers.
But that isn't the pattern, is it?
It's LHS, middle and RHS.

How can you simply ignore a third hand?
Middle? Okay, I'm referring to LHS and RHS of the "=", because the pattern takes w1 and w2, multiplies them to give w3 (w, x, y, z, as notated in an earlier post).
The pattern suggests that the "=" sign is as we would tend to understand it, hence I'm referring to the LHS and RHS of that. One could talk of a middle if you want, and say that the pattern is Left number in squence multiplied by the equivalent Middle number gives the Right number in the sequence. So forgive me if I have confused you in this.
I am dubious as to your logic that a guess is better than no answer at all, but YMMV.
First, my logic is not that "a guess is better than no answer at all", but as with all such problems, applying a clearly obvious pattern to get what would seem to be the most obvious answer is certainly better than no answer at all. If you perhaps want to call that "a guess" and thereby lump it in with all other guesses established through any other means, be my guest, but don't then attribute that to me.
Second, you're still being childish about the whole thing. It's like someone missing the goal and then turning round and saying "oh, but I meant to do that!" Yeah, sure. Whatever.

F̶i̶r̶s̶t̶,̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶l̶o̶g̶i̶c̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶"̶a̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶b̶e̶t̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶n̶o̶ ̶a̶n̶s̶w̶e̶r̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶"̶,̶
̶Y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶O̶P̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶s̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶s̶q̶u̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶s̶u̶s̶ ̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶b̶r̶a̶c̶k̶e̶t̶s̶;̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶g̶u̶e̶s̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶>̶ ̶b̶ ̶=̶ ̶c̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶.̶

Never mind, I should have read through first.

Second, you're still being childish about the whole thing.
That's the second time you've tried to drag this to an emotional arena, trolling for a reaction.

If the school playground is where you want to be, I can't join you.

Last edited:
That's the second time you've tried to drag this to an emotional arena, trolling for a reaction.

If the school playground is where you want to be, I can't join you.
It should have been clear that I was pointing out your childishness precisely to drag you out of the playground. Tell you what, you stop being childish about it, and I'll stop commenting how you're being childish about it? Sound fair?

It should have been clear that I was pointing out your childishness precisely to drag you out of the playground. Tell you what, you stop being childish about it, and I'll stop commenting how you're being childish about it? Sound fair?
OK, so you've doubled down.
Can't add anything more: if childishness is the place you need to be, I can't follow you.

FFS. You were being childish, as pointed out. You still are. Please stop. It didn't help then, and it doesn't help now.
But, yeah, whatever.

Now, is there anything else I can help you with in understanding the problem posed in the OP?

Last edited:
I did not see it until I read Sarkus.
It's more of a puzzle than an equation. Some kind of pattern to figure out.
Four equations are hidden in plain sight, one of them being 6b=12

Status
Not open for further replies.