Lee Mack: "I once refused to help a hang glider..." | Would I Lie To You?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 май 2024
- Lee Mack: "I once refused to help a hang glider who had become tangled in a tree because two hours earlier, he had been rude to me in a carpark."
From Would I Lie to You? Series 12 Episode 3.
Would I Lie to You? is the hit BBC panel show where two teams of celebrity guests try to figure out whether their opponent's ridiculously far-fetched statements about themselves are true or, in fact, a lie.
Featuring inimitable host Rob Brydon with lightning-quick team captains David Mitchell and Lee Mack.
Like Us on Facebook 👉 / wouldilietoyoutv
Follow Us on Twitter 👉 / wilty_tv
Would I Lie to You? is brought to you by Banjiay Rights in partnership with Zeppotron and the BBC.
#WILTY #WouldILieToYou #BBC 
Развлечения
David has turned pedantry into an art form.
This is the only tv comedy that has me laughing out loud
“She climbed that tree with her bare hands”, “No, she had human hands”!!🤣🤣🤣
Anton's (on David's team) verbal contribution is legendary.
Wouldn't you think that if you're getting paid to add a clever line here and there, and sort of, get a laugh from the audience, you might just ask ONE question? Or make ONE quip? 🤣
Man, both David and Lee were absolutely on top of their games in this round. I wonder where Roth went?
You can’t park there mate.
It was a fun lie tho
My favorite one haha
Reading this comment section I'm glad I chose psychology as a major and not anything with lots of maths in it.
I think you are all barking (yapping) up the wrong tree - Johan Marais Johannesburg South Africa
Mathmaticians enter the chat...⬇️
Here we go!!! if he was 20 feet up a thirty foot tree, then he was 2/3rds of the way up with a third to go. I'm probably wrong but I'm saying it anyway.😀😀
Ok, but if he was 20ft up and you say the tree was as tall as the height he stuck plus 1/3, the 1/3 is based of how high he is, so the tree would be 20+(20/3)=26.667. If you want the tree to be 30ft, you need the 20ft height he is stuck at + 10ft more, since 10 is 1/2 of 20 David is right.
I watch this almost everyday in one of the compilations. And i still don't get it.
Ahh so lee ment plus a third of the tree but David ment plus a half the height of the guy... Both are right but lee makes more intuitive sense
@@sonintrepidus I think David is correct based on how Lee’s statement is setup. He’s giving the height of the tree by comparing it to how high up the guy is, the tree can’t be the reference for it’s own height. The thought process you outlined for each of them is probably correct, but Lee’s thought process is flawed (or, alternatively, his expression of it). You only know what he means because you are human and can infer the thought process of other humans with reasonable accuracy, even when they are illogical or poorly expressed.
@@noxnc Wooooosh, that is the sound of my right hand being flung backward over the top of my head!
Hans Hangglider's feet were 2/3 of the way up and his head was 3/4 of the way up. If Hans were 6 ft tall, that would make the tree 72 feet, and he was hanging from 54-48 feet above the ground.
It might be that my brain is already fried from calculating Fourier series approximation for some data I've collected.. but David's reasoning seems to be flawed. If he's ⅔ up the height of a tree, then what remains is ⅓, not ½. I welcome any mathematical proof to prove me wrong, but I think Lee was correct from the start, not David
I think David's understanding is 1/2 of the distance below him (1/3)
David is right. It's the same as "you have 100, you add 5%, you remove 5%, how much have you at the end" (the answer is not 100). We see what Lee was saying, but David was right indeed.
@@etiennelemieux472 What? That makes no sense.
Lee: He was 2/3 up the height of the tree (2/3)h --> h - (2/3)h = (1/3)h --> (1/3)h remaining of the tree
How tall is the tree?
(2/3)h + (1/3)h --> (height of man + remaining 1 third of tree)
David: He was 2/3 up the height of the tree (2/3)h --> h - (2/3)h = (1/3)h --> (1/3)h remaining of the tree --> The remaining height of the tree is half the distance below the man
(2/3)h + ((1/2)(1/3)h) --> (height of man + half the height of the man)
Hi, my brain is equally fried but it's just a matter of perspective. Call the height of the man h and the height of the tree H
H = h + 1/3H. This is the logical way to interpret Lee's statement. This gives 2/3rd as Lee expresses.
The other way to interpret the statement "his height plus a third" would be to implicitly add. "Of the height of the man". In this case the equation H = h + 1/3h is indeed solved by 3/4ths.
David intentionally played on this ambiguity. They're both right.
The problem is the
David is right.
Let's use parts of 100 for ease. Let's assume we know that the height of the tree is 100. 100 cm/inches/percentage, whatever - it doesn't matter for the illustration.
Lee said that the guy was two thirds of the way up the tree. That's 66.66 recurring, let's use 66.67.
Lee's logic is this:
The height of the tree was how high the guy was plus a third. That is a third of the 66.67 (i.e. 22.22).
Therefore to calculate the height of the tree using this information, it would be 66.67 plus 22.22, which is 88.89, not the 100 we know it should be.
David's logic is as follows:
The height of the tree was how high the guy was plus a half. That is a half of the 66.67 (i.e. 33.33).
Therefore the tree height is 66.67 plus 33.33, which is 100, which is correct.
As Trump always says, Why spoil a perfectly good story with facts - Johan Marais Johannesburg South Africa
David is wrong here however you interpret what Lee says... David wrongly thinks that 2/3 + 1/3(2/3) is 3/4.... Which it isnt ... And even if it was then it creates a contradiction as it goes against the original statement of the glider being two thirds of the way up the tree. Therefore Lee could only have meant that the glider was two thirds of the way up the tree and the total height of the tree was 2/3 + 1/3 of the total height of the tree which (unlike David's claim) is at least consistent.
David is correct; it's only a matter of interpretation. He's saying if the man's height is 2/3 of the tree's height, then the tree's total height is the man's height + half of that height. If the tree is 9m tall, then the man is 6m high (2/3 X 9=6) and the tree's height is the man's height (6) plus half of the man's height (1/2 X 6=3). 6+3=9
Lee was being circular for comic effect, and obviously saying "the tree's height is 2/3 of the tree's height plus 1/3 of the tree's height) but he didn't specify "how high the man was plus 1/3 *of the tree's height*", which impelled David to nitpick.
David didn't say that 2/3 +1/2(2/3) = 3/4. He said, "If the tree is as high as the man is, plus 1/3 (of the height that the man is in the tree), then the man is 3/4 of the way up the tree." That's a true statement. If the man is 15 feet off the ground, and the tree is as high as 15 plus 1/3 of 15, then the tree is 20 feet tall. 15 is 3/4 of 20.
@@andyperry5385 Yes, you're right, thanks for explaining. If Lee had said the man was 2/3 of the way up the tree, and the tree was as high as the man plus 1/2, it would have been correct (I think).