4 million views...wow. Crazy to think this video is 6 years old. We've come a long way. Thanks to everyone that's supported MindYourDecisions. I will keep working hard to make interesting math videos.
@@sujatajena267 When I saw Mind your decisions comment, i thought there must be an Indian who already have commented here. When I clicked on replies, I got you first 😊
I thought it was zero, because the first number got less and less and the second ones have to be something with 0. 72 56 42 30 20 00 I don’t know if I explained it well, English is not my first language.
There are 3 correct patterns, however only the first one (6) does not require a reference to other values, and is therefore the best answer as it's standalone and applicable to any value. The other two answers would fall apart the moment you move the last line a bit too far down, destroying the potential/deceptive appearance of a list.
There is only one pattern, it is just written down in three different ways. a->a*(a-1) means exactly the same thing as decreasing multiplication. The same is true for decreasing subtraction it is just a bit harder to identify the relationship since you have reverse the order and to understand that multiplication is repeated addition. So going from 5 to 6 means adding 5 twice. Going from 6 to 7 means adding 6 twice. By doubling the number you are increasing the number the added value increases with by 2, because 1 doubled is 2.
For people who did not understand: So, based on @@bramvanduijn8086’s variable, n=a*(a-1), 9=72 would be explained as 9*(9-1), or 9*8, which is 72. 8*(8-1) is 8*7=56. 7*(7-1) is 7*6=42. 6*(6-1) is 6*5=30. 5*(5-1) is 5*4=20. 4*(4-1) is 4*3=12. And finally, 3*(3-1) is 3*2=6. So *6 is* yes, *the answer.*
@@bramvanduijn8086yes, the only reason there are multiple “correct” solutions is because term 4 is missing from the problem, and people can’t seem to understand that the number before 5-1 ≠ 3
@@7llininthedream Never say that,we are all made to be AWESOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Just let them get better,after all,the law of entropy doesn't refer to everything,and it's not always right. It was broken by even humans themselves.
@@graceharman7794 It's a trick, that's why "9" is NOT the best answer. Three answers are correct, but the best is "6". We can even add a 4th answer, which also give us "6", if we follow the substration method/logic: 6 = 30 5 = 20 (4 = 12) 3 = 6 PS: haha I only watched half of the video, it's explained in the second half.
@@aakankshanegi6833 So Rectangle with Sides A,B Area = AB Increase A by 20% and B by 5% 1.2A x 1.05B = 1.26AB So (1.26AB-AB)/AB = 0.26 or a 26% Increase in Area
@@insmyth307 14 was mine answer as well. 9=72 8=56 2*8=16 72-16=-56 5=20 3=? 2*3=6 20-6=14 In this Method it matters which number is next in the first row so if it was 4=? The answer would be 12 and after that it would still be 3=6 but not if you take 4 out.
Here's the fun part. Those other answers might could have worked, if they remembered that 4 was a potential place in the schema that was otherwise skipped to in turn ask you what 3 was. 20-8=12 would be the correct answer for 4. Which then gets 12-6=6 for 3. The last one would've had 4x3 and then 3x2. Which means it looks just the same as the first subset anyway. Seeing it as (x)(x-1) was okay. Personally I would've just called it x^2 - x
@@martinprice69 Right, obviously it not being included means that it obviously isn't meant to be in the set. But also not necessarily always the explicit case where only what is shown is included. I have seen some terribly implemented questions, be it from individual teachers, or from test-makers on things like the SAT. They implement stuff in a way that leaves room for some confusion or window of interpretation for how the question could be answered due to the written instructions on the test and how questions are written. This is often an issue because the questions for math are written by math teachers/professors, who sometimes drop the ball on ensuring full succinct clarity when it comes to language used. This is how you end up with some questions getting either multiple correct answers [if work was shown], or a question getting tossed entirely. This is normally only a question a year for things like the SAT, unless the ball got majorly dropped.
@@Velaroz me, it is actually very easy. I think that probably 99% of people succeed in finding the answer to this problem, but they turned it around for click baiting per usual 😄
lolnopound That’s a valid point. I would say all 3 answers are correct because they obviously all have patterns but what causes most if not all the confusion/arguments is that there’s no number 4.
Highfire Vortex Yeah but the other 2 methods work fine but they stop making sense when 3 stops following the pattern. Just because 4 isn’t shown doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be accounted for. Just as the numbers 10, 11, 12, 20, 37, 139 would all also work and follow the same pattern even though they were never shown
Both decreasing multiplication and decreasing subtraction skips the step ''4'' which would get them to the correct answer of 6. (4=20-8 and then 3=12-6) (4x3=12 and then 3x2=6 not 3x3)
and it makes no sense, since the number on the left is only decreasing by 1 every time, yet the other side is always changing differently, meaning the equal sign serves no point
The correct answer is that there isn't only one correct answer to this row. 6 is as correct as 9 because you can supply a formula by which you get to 6. If you say it's six, every one of these equations is a x (a-1). You'd need more numbers to claim that 6 is not a valid solution.
Yeah the problem with the other two answers is that they're methods purely based on the right side of the equation and completely ignore the left side, and of course as you point out they skip the fact that there's a missing 4 in the equation. The whole point of a problem like this imo is that it shouldn't matter what the final line's input is, you're supposed to be coming up with a generalized formula so that theoretically you could solve any random input using the same patterns as the existing inputs and outputs. You could generalize the "decreasing subtraction" method for example to something like Y = f(X+1) - (X*2 - 2), which is technically a generalized solution but it still requires knowing the answer to an adjacent formula. (you could of course also solve it based on f(X-1) if you wanted to work upwards instead of down). And when phrased this way, it gets you the correct answer, but it's more complicated and not very practical since you *have* to solve F(4) before you can solve F(3). So basically yeah the first solution is clearly the best and most useful one because if we thought about this kind of problem in a practical context, you'd want to create a simple generalized formula that could be applied to any input regardless of any prior inputs and outputs. Like the other two methods don't work if you need to solve for say X = 10,000 or X = -57. Or at least it would take a ton of effort. Meanwhile with the simple Y = X * (X-1) solution you can solve for any input. You could probably read into the other two answers more and try to say things like "oh well this is just representative of how some people try to take shortcuts instead of doing things properly" but I dunno if I wanna have that argument lol.
6. The number is multiplied by the next lowest number. x = n(n-1). Anyone who was taught mathematics in the traditional way of learning the times tables by heart will have recognized the pattern of numbers immediately.
I laughed SOOO hard on the first twenty seconds of the video when he said when he said it was claimed that 99% of people can't solve it and only genuises can😆
Yeah, I was surprised. I thought my mind would change hearing the other methods but as soon as he explained them, I knew that they're flawed because of how they skip 4 on the left side. You would figure it out by just looking at the thumbnail
@@AlDunbar yeah you are right i don't think you are a genius know because you solve the mathematic test right is just a way to make ppl feel more than the "99%" is actually simple IQ test
There is no missing line. you are ASSUMING there is a missing line..... You are to find the next line ONLY with the information provided. On that basis the answer is 9... You do not get to ADD stuff to make it fit YOUR desired answer...
@@matthewq4b mentally adding it, of course. The pattern was apparent from the previous 4 instances where the rule applies. Skipping a line would be a valid way of increasing the difficulty when designing a puzzle like this. The skip also only occurs at the last equation, where the answer is intentionally left blank, which further supports the theory.
@@starstenaal527 Nice try but you are ASSUMING a line was skipped. With NO supporting evidence. This another case of modifying a question to suit YOUR answer.. The correct answer for the information provided is three. Any other answers requires an assumption there is additional information missing. AGAIN you ARE assuming with ZERO indication that there is missing information. That is like saying 2+2=6 and then saying that another +2 is missing so the answer has to be 6. You do NOT modify questions to suit YOUR answer. With the information provided the answer is 3 plain and simple. ANYTHING else is an assumption...
@@matthewq4b In the examples provided, it's 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5. then the puzzle asks for 3. if you recognized the pattern, it is obvious that you have to go over 4 as well to comply with the GIVEN pattern. it is entirely possible that the puzzle creator wants you to do so. There is no information in the riddle that tells you to act as if you don't notice patterns. I have no idea what you mean with "modifying a question".
@@starstenaal527 WRONG you are ASSUMING there is 4 =. If the multiplier counts down 7 6 5 4 the next is 3, to equal 9 as is ACTUALY shown. There is NO 4=. other than the one YOU created. Again you are changing/ modifying the question to suit YOUR answer.. And not answering what is ACTUALLY shown.. Again you are taking question like 2+2 and saying the answer is 6 and assuming another +2 is missing.... There is ZERO indication ANY WHERE in the question that there is 4= line.
1. Create a very simple series 2. Create a picture which say 'index = value' for some indices, then leave out one or two indices and finally add 'index = ?' 3. Post it on social media 4. Congratulations, you're featured in a MindYourDecisions video now!
densch123 well since i solved mine correctly according to the rules in the video that means -14=1 but wait that's not right because -14=-28 and -14=/=1 and 1=2 and 1=/=-14 so that's wrong no hate
For both the second and third theory, the only difference that was really made, was that you didn’t count the amount of numbers you had to go through from 5 to 3 and explained them as if the next number decreasing from 5 was 3.
Looked at the thumbnail - isn't it just 6? Edit: Personally, I did the first method. However, the second and third methods are flawed, because they skip 4 in the sequence and don't account for it. Edit 2: I'm glad you brought up the above edit in the video.
@Razor Face Adding a line "4" is assuming that there is a sequence 9,8,7,6,5, and THUS 4 before 3. BUT answers "12" and "9" are in fact ALSO ASSUMING that there IS a sequence (respectively 16,14,12,10,8 and 8,7,6,5,4) but that this sequence IS NOT in the first row, only in the second (the calculation one). Thus the question is: why assuming a sequence and not the other? Or you assume both, or neither... By the way, for "12" answer, everything gives 12, the "line 3" could be 0, or 1 or 2, but also 9,8,7,6,5, ... because the answer is always "20-8" whatever the beginning of the line , what's nonsense :D
@Razor Face well ignoring 4 is clearly wrong because it gives two options, and if we are going to be taking anything by decreasing each time we need to keep it constant throughout
Lol I said the same thing before the video was over. I was really disappointed that 4 was skipped. As if it doesn't hold value. I am like wait wait wait. Since when do we just skip sequences just because the number isn't there.
"Some say the answer is 12. Others say the answer is 9. There is a third group that says the answer is 6..." ...and still a 4th group saying 3=3 and the other expressions are incorrect and superfluous.
When I saw the thumbnail, I immediately used the second method but accounted for 4, giving the answer of 5. I don’t know why other people who used the same method as me completely disregarded the pattern of decreasing by 1 on the left.
Because it's not explained as a sequence. The four is purposefully left out, therefore it can easily be assumed to not be part of the problem. By adding it in, you're changing the variables and creating a sequence that doesn't currently exist based on the currently available information. The answer is only six if you make it six by adding '4' to the sequence to make your answer right. I don't believe any of the answers are wrong, there are good arguments for each answer.
The left hand column decreases by 1 as it goes downward. Therefore, no reasonable basis exists to conclude that the decrease after the number 5 should be a decrease of 2, making 3 the next number in the downward progression. The "genius" solution is recognizing that 4 was left out.
Lol this is actually the worst "only a genius can solve this" ever. Im not tryig to say im smart but i can guarantee a lot of people noticed it in 10 seconds
Seriously. But IQ I tend to praise myself but I know my limits. This is so simple. It should be 6. The pattern with the other 2 doesnt care about the left side at all. If there is a pattern on one side there should be one more or less on the other.
Yes, Anita, I agree. But the problem is that it's SO simple, it looks to me that no one has actually found THE SIMPLEST answer, which does exist. It is a far better answer t han any of the ones offered in the video, simpler, gets the answer more directly, gets it correct for ANY digit or for negative numbers too, in a symmetrical way, the same answers WITHOUT EVEN REQUIRING A SEQUENTIAL SERIES OF GIVEN DATA to "mine" for patterns. In short, EVERY ONE of the solutions given gild the lily totally unnecessarily. There is an even simpler, more widely applicable, and stronger solution, and you do not even need a sequence to figure it out. Just get the answers for 3 or 4 integers at random, and you can then predict what the sequence presented as a "problem" will be for every one of its lines, with more simplicity and greater applicability than any of the answers provided in the video.
but there is a method like without the sequence and all. its simple. subtract the number from its square. like 81-9=72, 64-8=56, 49-7=42, 36-6=30, 25-5=20 and just like this without including 4. 9-3=6. simpleeeeeeee
The issue with the decreasing subtraction and decreasing multiplication methods is that they're not consistent - they're dependent on the lines above, so if you change the order the answers also change. Ideally these things should be order independent, with the given values merely representing examples of the formula.
Honestly the issue with the other two methods is that people don't notice that 4 was skipped. I did it by decreasing subtraction so if you notice that 4 was skipped and account for that the answer is still equal to 6. So sure it isn't a proof at the moment but it does line up.
No, the consistent formula for "decreasing subtraction" is a x (a + 1) - (a x 2) Which is the same as a^2 - a or a(a-1) Which is incidentally the same formula as "decreasing multiplication" and "answer is 6" The real problem is not applying the formula to 3 due to mistaking 4 for 3.
In any case, this entire "problem" is based on ignoring the entire definition of an equals sign. in the "function" interpretation, at least each line is a line, and the equal sign is a "function" instead of equals sign. decreasing subtraction the equals sign is nothing more than a vertical divider on the page, so i consider it the most nonsensical answer.
You do realize that the nine times table, increases by nines right? Like 9, 18, 27, 36, etc. so doing 9x9-9 is the same as 9x8. Which is literally the same as every body else, but your way is doing more work. It’s an extra step. Your multiplying a higher number just to subtract it again.
This can also be solved using modular arithmetic and noticing a clear pattern that as the LHS increases, the mod we're working with increases. For example, 9 is congruent to 72 mod 63, 8 is congruent to 56 mod 48, 7 is congruent to 47 mod 35, and so on. Each time we go down, we're decreasing mod m by the amount previous -2. So, going from 6 is congruent to 30 mod 24, we subtract 9 and get 5 is congruent to 20 mod (24-9=15). So then we subtract 7 and say 4 is congruent to 12 mod (15-7=8), and finally subtract 5 to get 3 is congruent to 6 mod 3 :).
Boom! What’s funny is all the people above saying “how can 99% of people miss this?” Yet whenever it’s posted, roughly 99% of answers are something other than 3.
@@visiblecontent7630 I take it you didn't even watch the video?? The comment I was replying to stated "Impressive that you managed to make a 7 minute video about this ^^" yet the video is actually 7 minutes AND 49 seconds long. I was merely pointing out to 8Smoker8 that they shorted themselves by 49 seconds....... You've gone & made my comment far too complicated for absolutely no reason.. Does my explanation now makes sense to you?
a^2 - a I say this because all of the other methods required more interference, as in the simplest solution within or the solution that has the most solid reasoning should be the default answer.
Agreed, but I stated it as a * ( a -1 ) because perhaps not everyone is aware of the use of ^, the power operator. In fact I almost used A**2, but then realized that not everyone has used the Fortran programming language.
There is no rationale for the "decreasing multiplication" method either. One does not have enough information to deduce that the multiplier is independent of the number on the left and instead dependent on the order of appearance in the question, which it would have to be, for the multiplier of 3 to be 3 instead of 2.
And then there's a fourth group that found the quartic function that passes through all the given points and solved it for x=3. And then a fifth group did the same thing as the fourth, but subtracted the corresponding values from f(x) = 0.5*ln(x) from the inputs of the process so that, after deriving their quartic function, they could add an arbitrary logarithmic element to the end of it. This was all done so that _their_ function would give all the correct values given in the riddle, but would give a completely different but equally valid value at x=3 just to make the fourth group look bad. And then a sixth group saw how much fun and internet prestige the fifth group had received from mocking the fourth group, and tried to jump on the band wagon by doing the same thing with f(x) = 0.2*SQRT(x) + 8, but it didn't catch on because no one noticed the pun. And then a seventh group discovered that the sequence of values given in the riddle corresponded directly to a series of numbers on the back of a DVD box cover of "Rush Hour 2" and thus came to conclusion that the correct answer was "Jackie Chan".
@@ThomasTheThermonuclearBomb Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations! You've won the Jake Eyes Weekly, Monthly, or However-long-before-I-get-an-opportunity-to-give-out-one-of-these-againly Humility Award! Because there is no pun! I was gaslighting you all into _believing_ there was one to see who would be the first to have the humility to admit that they didn't get it. And the winner is Thomas the Thermonuclear Bomb! As for the rest of you, do us all a favor and feel ashamed of yourselves! Unless, of course, you're late to the party and didn't discover this comment until after the Humility award was claimed. In that case, you should know that my original comment had 15 likes at the time Tommy the Nuke admitted the passage of the placebo pun over his pate, which means at least 14 other people read the comment before someone was secure enough in their intelligence to admit the simulated wooshery. Assuming this ratio correlates with the greater this-comment-thread-reading population, this means that you likely would have had, at most, a 1 in 15 probability of being humble enough to admit supercranial wordplay locomotion, so doctors suggest taking approximately 93.3% of your daily recommended dose of humiliation. Of course, if anyone somehow _does_ manage to find a pun that I didn't notice, please post it below to claim the Jake Eyes Hopefully-not-to-oftenly Bested the Architect Award! I promise I will be WAY too captivated by the coincidence to express my jealously of your intellect in the form of crass, defensive verbal abuse. It will, instead, take the form of crass, defensive textual abuse, as has been and will be the custom here on RUclips until the platform implements a voicemail feature in fulfillment of certain passages of the Book of Revelation.
I easily came up with the first solution 6. You just wanna catch a common pattern with "simplest" relation. The other two add unnecessary complication and interjection into it.
If you look at the middle solution - the answer is wrong because the number skips from 5 to 3 completely ignoring the 4 in between. So if it was the middle equation then the next number would be 12 but subtracting 6. The next number (3) would be 6-4 so the last number would be 2. (hope i've made sense!!)
Good call, the pattern was obvious straight away. 20+10=30 , 30+12=42 and so on. I've found these videos to overly complicate simple patterns . I just watched two in a row and got them quick. All hail the math genius.
I was debating whether I should add the line for 4= or not... I was wondering if it was left out on purpose or not... so I had both 6 and 9 as possible answers depending on if we should add the row for 4= or not.
For the Decreasing subtraction method, I think you actually have to also calculate what 4 would equal before skipping to 3, or else that wouldn't be a pattern. 5 = 20, minus 8 =12 4 = 12, minus 6 = 6 so 3 is 6 if we use that method correctly.
@@lowenbarbe6229 oh ok, I didn't watch it that far. I would assume he would say it right after. but he went to another method so I thought he was done dealing with it
It took me about 10 seconds to come up with the first answer. When he introduced the other two answers I thought I was gonna be proven wrong or something lol
All the problems of this type have the same answer: There is an almost infinite number of mathematical sequences that fit any given list of elements. This is especially true if the number of elements given is low. No set of numbers can be uniquely described. tl;dr: if you ask ill-defined questions you will get ill-defined answers
It's 6. The other two answers notice a pattern in the second column, but ignore the pattern in the first column. The fact that the pattern in the first column changes after 5 suggests that we're "skipping ahead" to 3. So you'd need to "skip ahead" in the second column as well, which as the second half of the video shows, would get you 6 no matter which formula you use.
@@50AHenry the issue with this sort of problems is that some of them can have more than one pattern so just because you thought of another one than the one asking the question, doesn't mean you were wrong.
5:35 i had the same idea, it has a pattern and its skipping one line, meaning 6 is the correct answer by deductive reasoning based on the pattern presented.
@@shahnazwm I look it like this if it's right for you then that's good enough, people can always find an argument for another answer,But that just mean they li8ke to nock the system It's biut like saying the earth is not round even though we all know it is. ,
You could also just do the number x the number previous: 9 x 8 = 72 8 x 7 = 56 7 x 6 = 42 6 x 5 = 30 5 x 4 = 20 4 x 3 = 12 3 x 2 = 6 2 x 1 = 2 1 x 0 = 0
Honestly, the a(a-1) solution just makes more sense, and works more easily for any other number you want to find in the pattern, just based on how variables work
Times tables helped a lot with this one. I noticed the decending order and how the product of each two top/bottom adjecent numbers was repeatedly the solution, so when it came to the 4 and then three I was convinced that you would multiply the bigger number by a value that was itself minus one. I wrote the value that would need to multiply to become the product to the right of each equation, and each one was the value directly below it. Like: Product = (itself - 1) x (itself) 9=72 =x 8 8=56 =× 7 ... 4=12 =× 3 ... 3=6 =× 2 Was happy to get the right answer.
To me, I just see it as the equasion 𝑦 = 𝑥² - 𝑥, where the left hand column of the question is the 𝑦 values, and the right hand column is the 𝑥 values, with this equasion you see that 6 = 3² - 3, 6 = 9 - 3, 6 = 6, so it checks out, and infact with this you can solve the equasion for all values of 𝑥 including non-natural numbers.
If the 4 didn't matter then there wouldn't be any numbers on the left, just a series and a question about the next number. The numbers on the left, however, so the result should be solely based on the index rather than which result was previously asked about. Basically, there should be a rule(function) that relates the index and result without depending on the results of other indices.
It's amazing how everyone would've gotten (what I see to be) the correct answer if the second and third groups had both considered that the pattern is skipped over 4. If you insert 4 into the pattern, all three solutions give you 3 = 6
Saw the thumbnail, instantly saw the equivalence relation as: a->a(a-1). It’s cool to see it thought of as decreasing subtraction as well. In my opinion this was pretty straight forward, you definitely don’t need to be a “genius” to solve this. That being said, it’s nothing to be ashamed of if it was tricky for anyone! I can’t help but click on these videos to see if my solution is “correct” lol.
@@andream61 oh no you’re right it’s not those things, I should’ve probably used the word “mapping” instead of “equivalence relation” here. I used the wording “equivalence relation” because equal signs were used here, and I forgot about the strict mathematical meaning of the term, but no it’s not an equivalence relation in the theoretical math sense sorry for the confusion. It’s just a mapping, right?
Looked at the thumbnail for 3 seconds or less, got 6. Spent another 5 seconds confirming (9 x 8 = 72, 8 x 7 = 56, 7 x 6 = 42, etc) Seems pretty simple since I could answer AND verify my answer in under 10 seconds, but I'll watch the video now to see if I missed something.
For once, we get the same answer. I noted the missing "line", included it in my sequence and got an answer of 6.Don't think it makes me a genius - just careful.
In my case, I did note the skipping of 4. In my head, either 4 was skipped or left out. I got '6' as a possible answer by assuming that 4 was implied, but still part of the set. I got '9' as a possible answer by assuming that 4 wasn't implied, and therefore not part of the set, but the second side was decreasing multiplication that always decreased by the same value. When you brought up the possibility of '12', and how to get that number, I realized a third possible option for the implied column. Since 5 went straight to 3, it was possible that the implied column would decrement in a similar fashion. For the (n[n-1]) possibility, this is built in. For the decreasing multiplication possibility, this happens when you assume that 4 is skipped. For the decreasing subtraction possibility, this changes the result. Instead of simply subtracting 2 from the value that is being subtracted from the preceding result, you need to subtract 2[x], where x = a - b, with a = the initial column or the previous line, and b = the initial column of the current line. Here, we would be subtracting 4 (2[2]), instead of 2, from the previous number of 10, making 6 being subtracted from 20. 20 - 6 = 14. So for the decreasing subtraction method under this assumption, we get 3 = 14.
I got one more logic......infact its the very first logic to click my mind....it is 9²-9=72 8²-8=56 7²-7=42 6²-6=30 5²-5=20 4²-4=12 So It should be 3²-3=6.......
That's because it's a function: f(x) = x * (x-1) , if you simply expand the brackets you get to your solution which is x^2 - x. the decreasing substraction method comes to the conclusion that the difference between f(x+1) and f(x) is 2x, which can also be derived from your formula: f(x) = x^2 - x we get f(x+1) by replacing x with x+1 f(x+1) = (x+1)^2 - (x+1) expanding the brackets = x^2 + 2x + 1 - x - 1 rearranging and crossing out the +1 and -1 = x^2 - x + 2x replacing x^2 - x with f(x) = f(x) + 2x if we substract 2x from both sides we get f(x+1) - 2x = f(x) which is our decreasing substraction method
Same thought process here. Can see how some problems like really demonstrate numbers can have differing relationships with each other. Would be annoying in a test if it were deemed only one answer was correct with only the same initial information.
me too but i was tricked, after answearing 6 i thought "damn that is too straightforward it must be a trap, there must be something more than just 6" so i changed my answear to 12 after seeing the other path 😭😭😭
There is an additional possible solution: 14. (72-2*8=56; 56-2*7=42; 42-2*6=30; 30-2*5=20; 20-2*3=14) Beside that, no presented solution takes into account that the first column contains the oban numbers.
Again, this has a similar "missing line" problem that the other solutions had - you've missed 4. If you included 4, you'd get 20-2*4 = 12 and 12 - 2*3 = 6.
@@MrDFive5 In the possible solution i presented, all numbers on the left side are exclusively oban numberse (hence my criticism, that no presented solution uses that fact) which means that there is no "missing line".
But then how do you calculate 72. The point of a pattern is that they work independently, but this method makes it so it requires a number above to solve. On another note, yes, you did skip the 4th line, cause it should have been 20-2*4=12 and then do 12-2*3=6. If you cant just pick up a random number at the left and get an answer at the right side of the equation that invalidates any solution. If you wanted to calculate say, what number was attached to 81, you'd have to start from number 9 to calculate what number you're substracting, so it isnt efficient at all
@@kristophesiem5336 Though i disagree about what you consider to be the point of a pattern, it can be described the way you seem to prefer. If oban(i) is the i-th oban number, setOban(j) is the set of the first j oban numbers, sum(set_A) is the sum of all numbers in set_A and value(term_T) is the decimal value of term_t, then the pattern type you seem to be after, can be described as the string: "oban(n) = Value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(n-1)))" 3 = oban(1); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(1-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({})) = 14 5 = oban(2); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(2-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3})) = 20 6 = oban(3); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(3-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5})) = 30 7 = oban(4); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(4-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6})) = 42 8 = oban(5); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(5-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7})) = 56 9 = oban(6); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(6-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7, 8})) = 72 10 = oban(7); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(7-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9})) = 90 ... You can only skip, what exists. As you can see above all lines are used, so nothing is left to be skipped. It seems, you are basing your reasoning on the assumption that the numbers on the left side (or the summands on the right side) have to be natural numbers. But nothing in the task demands that. Therefore i am free to ignore such an arbitrary assumption, when searching for a solution. My solution also doesn't provide a line starting with 81 because "eighty one" also contains the letter 'o'.
@@derwolf7810 You claim that the left side having to be a natural pattern is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption. Yet it remains a very obvious pattern. The left side subtracts by 1 each row. You deliberately ignore the established pattern in your assessment. You say you can "choose" to ignore the assumption and make your own assumption, leading to a different solution, but that doesn't mean your answer is correct. You can't pick and choose your assumptions when they contradict evidence. That's why it's an assumption and not a guess, as it is based on reason rather than randomness. There is an established pattern and, because the 4 is missing, the conclusion is that one must assume that there is a row missing. The logical solution is that the missing 4 has to be taken into account. Your solution checks out when one makes the assumption that the 4 is not missing. But that assumption is not logical. And while all numbers on the left are oban numbers and therefore establish a different pattern, that doesn't suddenly make it more logical. They start at 9 on the left, while 10 and 11 are also oban numbers. Why 9? That seems random. And it would only consider the left side as the right side contains numbers with 'o' in them. The question it really comes down to is whether oban is a logical justification to validate your solition and it appears more random than the missing 4. So, logic dictates 3=14 is not a logical solution
** Written while the video was playing. The second 2 fails to account for the change in the pattern of the first numbers. Premise: 9=72-16=56 8=56-14=42 7=42-12=30 6=30-10=20 5=20-8=12 Then: 4=12-6=6 3=6 The subtraction would then have the pattern of being a=a(-1)-2(a-1) And by this logic the third option will actually end up the same as the first. So the answer is always 6.
4 million views...wow. Crazy to think this video is 6 years old. We've come a long way. Thanks to everyone that's supported MindYourDecisions. I will keep working hard to make interesting math videos.
Love you presh❤ for your efforts. Thanks to you bro for providing quality math problems.
Best math channel on youtube.
You the goat man
@@sujatajena267 When I saw Mind your decisions comment, i thought there must be an Indian who already have commented here. When I clicked on replies, I got you first 😊
nice
Ok... Has anyone solved it just by seeing the video's thumbnail?
Yep
Yeah, it is easy.
Kanklys yep
Yup me
Yup
I did the decreasing substraction method and it was still 6. The reason why people say its 12 is because they miss the 4 between 5 and 3.
Precisely
Bro the last one is 6 too because of this, they miss the 4
@@youzhou3001 If you include the 4 all of the methods will give you 6
I thought it was zero, because the first number got less and less and the second ones have to be something with 0.
72
56
42
30
20
00
I don’t know if I explained it well, English is not my first language.
Also for the final méthode they miss the 4 between 5 and 3
I am always bothered when the equal sign is abused in such a way.
They should use an arrow instead
@Just no one like this 👉👌
I like 3(47), so here's my 👍🤓
Mind your own damn decisions!
There's already a notation for that: function notation. And they still use equal sign. Preposterous
There are 3 correct patterns, however only the first one (6) does not require a reference to other values, and is therefore the best answer as it's standalone and applicable to any value. The other two answers would fall apart the moment you move the last line a bit too far down, destroying the potential/deceptive appearance of a list.
There is only one pattern, it is just written down in three different ways. a->a*(a-1) means exactly the same thing as decreasing multiplication. The same is true for decreasing subtraction it is just a bit harder to identify the relationship since you have reverse the order and to understand that multiplication is repeated addition. So going from 5 to 6 means adding 5 twice. Going from 6 to 7 means adding 6 twice. By doubling the number you are increasing the number the added value increases with by 2, because 1 doubled is 2.
Yes
@@bramvanduijn8086I solved it by the thumbnail
For people who did not understand:
So, based on @@bramvanduijn8086’s variable,
n=a*(a-1), 9=72 would be explained as 9*(9-1), or 9*8, which is 72.
8*(8-1) is 8*7=56.
7*(7-1) is 7*6=42.
6*(6-1) is 6*5=30.
5*(5-1) is 5*4=20.
4*(4-1) is 4*3=12.
And finally, 3*(3-1) is 3*2=6.
So *6 is* yes, *the answer.*
@@bramvanduijn8086yes, the only reason there are multiple “correct” solutions is because term 4 is missing from the problem, and people can’t seem to understand that the number before 5-1 ≠ 3
2:34 they skipped 4, so this is how it should go below 5:
4 = 12 - 6 = 6
3 = 6
20-4×2=12
12-3×2=6
6
BlockyShapes Indeed i knew that xD
same with the decresing multiplication
BlockyShapes that’s why they are wrong
The only thing hard understanding is why is this vid 8 mins long
Stewie -• 😂
Because he can't explain it well enough.
Absolutely
Because ambiguously posed problems can have multiple valid solutions.
So simple, y = x(x - 1). How does it take that long to explain that?
Pff, easy.
9=72 - false
8=56 - false
7=42 - false
6=30 - false
5=20 - false
3=3
!?!
What? No... You are trying to be smart. Just use times tables...
@@pavelgabrielioan I said, stop trying to be smart :)
@@7llininthedream Never say that,we are all made to be AWESOMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Just let them get better,after all,the law of entropy doesn't refer to everything,and it's not always right. It was broken by even humans themselves.
But where is 4?
I used the subtraction method but i arrived to 6
9 = 72, 8 = 56, 7 = 42, 6 = 30, 5 = 20, 4 = 12 and 3 = 6
why did we jump the case left side = 4?
Rafa Ramos he made the same mistake with the last one as well
Rafa Ramos to trick u
3 would actually be 30, due to 6 being equal to 30
Your right what happened to 4
@@graceharman7794 It's a trick, that's why "9" is NOT the best answer. Three answers are correct, but the best is "6".
We can even add a 4th answer, which also give us "6", if we follow the substration method/logic:
6 = 30
5 = 20
(4 = 12)
3 = 6
PS: haha I only watched half of the video, it's explained in the second half.
Actually, recognizing the skipped number-line and adjusting to it is how the problem is solved, no matter which of the three methods are used.
If one side of the rectangle is extended by 20% and the other arm is increased by 5%. Then find the percentage change in area?
Solution pls...
@@aakankshanegi6833
So Rectangle with Sides A,B
Area = AB
Increase A by 20% and B by 5%
1.2A x 1.05B = 1.26AB
So (1.26AB-AB)/AB = 0.26 or a 26% Increase in Area
yeah, he covers this in the video
You are assuming that the pattern applies to 4, 4 was never given, what if 4 gives a different answer then the solutions would fail
what are you trying to say???
If you're wondering why this test is so easy, remember: it was taken from Facebook.
Answer is really 14.. and rarely anyone gets that..
@@insmyth307 explain....
@@insmyth307 🤨
@@insmyth307 what no the answer is russia
@@insmyth307
14 was mine answer as well.
9=72
8=56
2*8=16
72-16=-56
5=20
3=?
2*3=6
20-6=14
In this Method it matters which number is next in the first row so if it was 4=? The answer would be 12 and after that it would still be 3=6 but not if you take 4 out.
Here's the fun part. Those other answers might could have worked, if they remembered that 4 was a potential place in the schema that was otherwise skipped to in turn ask you what 3 was.
20-8=12 would be the correct answer for 4. Which then gets 12-6=6 for 3.
The last one would've had 4x3 and then 3x2. Which means it looks just the same as the first subset anyway.
Seeing it as (x)(x-1) was okay. Personally I would've just called it x^2 - x
He makes the argument that the other answers could've worked if you insert the missing "4" line in the video.
I mean x(x-1) and x²-x are equivalent statements (and, honestly, 9×8 is a shorter and faster problem than 9×9×-9), so...
If the 4 was supposed to be part of the equation. There would be a question mark for the 4. But there isn't. The answer is 9.
@@martinprice69 Right, obviously it not being included means that it obviously isn't meant to be in the set.
But also not necessarily always the explicit case where only what is shown is included.
I have seen some terribly implemented questions, be it from individual teachers, or from test-makers on things like the SAT.
They implement stuff in a way that leaves room for some confusion or window of interpretation for how the question could be answered due to the written instructions on the test and how questions are written. This is often an issue because the questions for math are written by math teachers/professors, who sometimes drop the ball on ensuring full succinct clarity when it comes to language used.
This is how you end up with some questions getting either multiple correct answers [if work was shown], or a question getting tossed entirely.
This is normally only a question a year for things like the SAT, unless the ball got majorly dropped.
@@Velaroz me, it is actually very easy. I think that probably 99% of people succeed in finding the answer to this problem, but they turned it around for click baiting per usual 😄
6 is obviously the answer, other two methods still yield 6, except that they skip the line of 4 = 12
lolnopound
because the pattern itself literally skips 4. Do you not know what the video is about?
lolnopound
That’s a valid point. I would say all 3 answers are correct because they obviously all have patterns but what causes most if not all the confusion/arguments is that there’s no number 4.
That line isn't even in the question at all
Highfire Vortex
Yeah but the other 2 methods work fine but they stop making sense when 3 stops following the pattern. Just because 4 isn’t shown doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be accounted for. Just as the numbers 10, 11, 12, 20, 37, 139 would all also work and follow the same pattern even though they were never shown
@@Orrinn123 my man, thanks for backing me up
Both decreasing multiplication and decreasing subtraction skips the step ''4'' which would get them to the correct answer of 6. (4=20-8 and then 3=12-6) (4x3=12 and then 3x2=6 not 3x3)
He explained it which is coolio
So every method gives an answer of 6
and it makes no sense, since the number on the left is only decreasing by 1 every time, yet the other side is always changing differently, meaning the equal sign serves no point
all 3 methods are really doing the same thing. Those that get a different answer than 6 are just applying the method incorrectly.
@@gabepalmer9531 I don't know, but a simple reduction of the hidden multiplier by 1 gives 3 x 2 = 6
Me: Yeah, so the answer is 6, right?
Presh: "So the most common answer is 6."
*Anxiety noises*
My first thought: Damn it.
After the video: Now I'm just mad at every other answer.
Yeah but if you notice they all skip the 4 and go to the 3 and if you include the 4 in these patterns it always give 6 as an answer
@@rallozarx4215 nope 9
The correct answer is that there isn't only one correct answer to this row. 6 is as correct as 9 because you can supply a formula by which you get to 6. If you say it's six, every one of these equations is a x (a-1). You'd need more numbers to claim that 6 is not a valid solution.
I used the first method of x(x-1) and got 6, but using the decreasing subtraction method I'd get this:
3=6-4
3=2
Yeah the problem with the other two answers is that they're methods purely based on the right side of the equation and completely ignore the left side, and of course as you point out they skip the fact that there's a missing 4 in the equation.
The whole point of a problem like this imo is that it shouldn't matter what the final line's input is, you're supposed to be coming up with a generalized formula so that theoretically you could solve any random input using the same patterns as the existing inputs and outputs.
You could generalize the "decreasing subtraction" method for example to something like Y = f(X+1) - (X*2 - 2), which is technically a generalized solution but it still requires knowing the answer to an adjacent formula. (you could of course also solve it based on f(X-1) if you wanted to work upwards instead of down). And when phrased this way, it gets you the correct answer, but it's more complicated and not very practical since you *have* to solve F(4) before you can solve F(3).
So basically yeah the first solution is clearly the best and most useful one because if we thought about this kind of problem in a practical context, you'd want to create a simple generalized formula that could be applied to any input regardless of any prior inputs and outputs. Like the other two methods don't work if you need to solve for say X = 10,000 or X = -57. Or at least it would take a ton of effort. Meanwhile with the simple Y = X * (X-1) solution you can solve for any input.
You could probably read into the other two answers more and try to say things like "oh well this is just representative of how some people try to take shortcuts instead of doing things properly" but I dunno if I wanna have that argument lol.
Yeah like if you add that 4 every method will obviously give the same answer every time
The proper representation should be:
f(9) = 72; f(8) = 56; f(7) = 42; f(6) = 30; f(5) = 20; f(3) = ?
@@icecrack4579 15
6
@@icecrack4579 yea, f(x) = x * (x-1)
@@jansimacek5084 yes, that is what I used.
Not everyone listened to algebra class and this problem was an Internet thing, it is logical to assume the audience wouldn't understand that imo
“Only a genius solved it.”
Me doing it by seeing the thumbnail: *what did you say?*
ikr i did this in a second
Same, it's super obvious.
I looked at it once in my recommended, couldn’t solve it, then it showed up again and I solved it that time instantly
@@epicgaming7813 same, I saw it the first time and was confused. I forgot about it and when I saw it again I figured it out instantly.
@@Zenoson so i
6. The number is multiplied by the next lowest number. x = n(n-1).
Anyone who was taught mathematics in the traditional way of learning the times tables by heart will have recognized the pattern of numbers immediately.
Exactly
A bit to easy, what's the point.
yep
n²-n
@@kw1ky971 also works
But the real smart people realise that 9 doesn’t equal 72 and 3 just equals 3
Sir, your İQ İS OVER 9000?!!?!??!
As noted:
Should be writen
as "Produces -->",
and NOT "Equals =" !
Sooba Dooba It was a joke about the show called “dragon ball z”
Sooba Dooba r/woooosh
@@blorbaltude Twas a joke.
I still don‘t understand why you have to be a genius to see, that the 4 is missing?!
Octane you know that’s the trick for more harder right?
And that will make people have many answer to wrongness
Yep if u notice that and do it for all the steps again but include 4 this time then all the answers will be 6?
Ragini Omg exactly. Accounting for the four means nothing. It’s asking you to solve for three.
I didn't notice the four and thought it was 9
I laughed SOOO hard on the first twenty seconds of the video when he said when he said it was claimed that 99% of people can't solve it and only genuises can😆
Yeah, I was surprised. I thought my mind would change hearing the other methods but as soon as he explained them, I knew that they're flawed because of how they skip 4 on the left side. You would figure it out by just looking at the thumbnail
The "only x% can solve this" is a common ploy to keep people on their hooks by fanning their ego.
@@AlDunbar yeah you are right i don't think you are a genius know because you solve the mathematic test right is just a way to make ppl feel more than the "99%" is actually simple IQ test
yeah this channel always lies about facts like that
The answer is "numbers, by definition, cannot be variables."
I've figured it's 6 by using the decreasing multiplication method, by adding the missing line of 4*3.
There is no missing line. you are ASSUMING there is a missing line..... You are to find the next line ONLY with the information provided. On that basis the answer is 9... You do not get to ADD stuff to make it fit YOUR desired answer...
@@matthewq4b mentally adding it, of course. The pattern was apparent from the previous 4 instances where the rule applies. Skipping a line would be a valid way of increasing the difficulty when designing a puzzle like this. The skip also only occurs at the last equation, where the answer is intentionally left blank, which further supports the theory.
@@starstenaal527 Nice try but you are ASSUMING a line was skipped. With NO supporting evidence. This another case of modifying a question to suit YOUR answer..
The correct answer for the information provided is three. Any other answers requires an assumption there is additional information missing. AGAIN you ARE assuming with ZERO indication that there is missing information. That is like saying 2+2=6 and then saying that another +2 is missing so the answer has to be 6. You do NOT modify questions to suit YOUR answer. With the information provided the answer is 3 plain and simple. ANYTHING else is an assumption...
@@matthewq4b In the examples provided, it's 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5. then the puzzle asks for 3. if you recognized the pattern, it is obvious that you have to go over 4 as well to comply with the GIVEN pattern. it is entirely possible that the puzzle creator wants you to do so. There is no information in the riddle that tells you to act as if you don't notice patterns. I have no idea what you mean with "modifying a question".
@@starstenaal527 WRONG you are ASSUMING there is 4 =. If the multiplier counts down 7 6 5 4 the next is 3, to equal 9 as is ACTUALY shown. There is NO 4=. other than the one YOU created. Again you are changing/ modifying the question to suit YOUR answer.. And not answering what is ACTUALLY shown.. Again you are taking question like 2+2 and saying the answer is 6 and assuming another +2 is missing.... There is ZERO indication ANY WHERE in the question that there is 4= line.
i solved it by only looking at the thumbnail and I'm FAR from being a genius
memo boy did you solve it with every method available? nice bro
Paul Googol no, the multiplication method
memo boy that's exactly what a genious would say.
Paul Googol ok
Not even joking i did the same thing
1. Create a very simple series
2. Create a picture which say 'index = value' for some indices, then leave out one or two indices and finally add 'index = ?'
3. Post it on social media
4. Congratulations, you're featured in a MindYourDecisions video now!
Patrick Wienhöft Preach the truth.
Surely you need two for 69 though?
1+1=69
-14
densch123 well since i solved mine correctly according to the rules in the video that means -14=1 but wait that's not right because -14=-28 and -14=/=1 and 1=2 and 1=/=-14 so that's wrong no hate
+SpartanSpark also, if your working off of a doubling rule, it would just be positive 14, because negative and negative make positive.
For both the second and third theory, the only difference that was really made, was that you didn’t count the amount of numbers you had to go through from 5 to 3 and explained them as if the next number decreasing from 5 was 3.
Yeah exactly, people that think these are the answer just need to ask themselves what the answer for "4 = ?" would be
@@sb_dunk 12
The answer for 3 can also be root72 as 9 = 72
9=72
3^2=72
3=root72
3=6 * root2
How did 99% of people fail this?
Blue Jays Fan 31415 they missed 4
ofc they didn't, just a bait
in an iq test, you have maybe 5sec for this.
No I am win
they overthought this
"Only a Genius could solve it" *solves it in 5 seconds*
You were tired, right?
you must be a genius
A8nton loled
XDTV hence why it was shared millions of times. everybody loves to pretend they're smart
If it takes a genius to solve this, we're in serious f!$%&$ trouble.
Looked at the thumbnail - isn't it just 6?
Edit: Personally, I did the first method. However, the second and third methods are flawed, because they skip 4 in the sequence and don't account for it.
Edit 2: I'm glad you brought up the above edit in the video.
I did the second method and accounted for 4 and got 6
@Razor Face Adding a line "4" is assuming that there is a sequence 9,8,7,6,5, and THUS 4 before 3.
BUT answers "12" and "9" are in fact ALSO ASSUMING that there IS a sequence (respectively 16,14,12,10,8 and 8,7,6,5,4) but that this sequence IS NOT in the first row, only in the second (the calculation one).
Thus the question is: why assuming a sequence and not the other? Or you assume both, or neither...
By the way, for "12" answer, everything gives 12, the "line 3" could be 0, or 1 or 2, but also 9,8,7,6,5, ... because the answer is always "20-8" whatever the beginning of the line , what's nonsense :D
It’s 9 not 6.
@Razor Face well ignoring 4 is clearly wrong because it gives two options, and if we are going to be taking anything by decreasing each time we need to keep it constant throughout
Lol I said the same thing before the video was over. I was really disappointed that 4 was skipped. As if it doesn't hold value. I am like wait wait wait. Since when do we just skip sequences just because the number isn't there.
"Some say the answer is 12. Others say the answer is 9. There is a third group that says the answer is 6..."
...and still a 4th group saying 3=3 and the other expressions are incorrect and superfluous.
7 second riddles be like:
I'm the 5th group saying "14 and I'm right"
Sofia ruclips.net/video/40Pvi1XVm_s/видео.html
@@PotatoVariety The answer is 6
The answer is 3.
The answer is without a doubt 6. The other methods are both ignoring the 5 to 3 jump
Bostonzo B that was my thought too
Bostonzo B also the other solutions also give the answer of six by adding the missing line
Bostonzo B I did it and should have have got 6 but mucked up my calculations and got 12.
No, the answer is 3.
3 = 3, whatever falsehoods are already written on the screen.
wait 3 = 3 sounds like the hardest puzzle! It is up there with 10 = 10 and 27 = 27
People are wrong when they say that the answer is twelve because it skips the number 4 when subtracting.
Alan Conde and they are wrong when saying 9 because they also skipped 4 and went straight to 3
@@وليد-ع6ظ Actually, he factored in the 4, just didn't write it down.
Ok, captain obvious... we all know he skipped 4. We have eyes 👀
Yep
True
in the decreasing subtraction we should take, if 9, take 8 multiply with 2, subtract that from 72 and we have 56
Both the 2nd and the 3rd solution don't make much sense because they neglect the 4=? equation.
Yes that is the point, they do not look at the numbers but simply the next line
No they don't
When I saw the thumbnail, I immediately used the second method but accounted for 4, giving the answer of 5. I don’t know why other people who used the same method as me completely disregarded the pattern of decreasing by 1 on the left.
Yeah, can't forget the missing 4.
Because it's not explained as a sequence.
The four is purposefully left out, therefore it can easily be assumed to not be part of the problem.
By adding it in, you're changing the variables and creating a sequence that doesn't currently exist based on the currently available information.
The answer is only six if you make it six by adding '4' to the sequence to make your answer right.
I don't believe any of the answers are wrong, there are good arguments for each answer.
The left hand column decreases by 1 as it goes downward. Therefore, no reasonable basis exists to conclude that the decrease after the number 5 should be a decrease of 2, making 3 the next number in the downward progression. The "genius" solution is recognizing that 4 was left out.
Answer is 14
3 =14
And logic is
A=B
C=D
E=F
Where
D = F + 2*E
B = D + 2*C
.....
@@tokyo.peking i dont think so that also makes no sense
@@FrogsAreGods
I didn't ask you to think but to look.
Result is ok therefore ....
@@tokyo.peking First, the use of the symbol "=" is retarded. Second, answer is simple:
X = (X^2)-X
9 = (9*9)-9 = 81-9 = 72
8 = (8*8)-8 = 64-8 = 56
7 = (7*7)-7 = 49-7 = 42 = The Answer to The Big Question about Life, The Universe, And Everything
6 = (6*6)-6 = 36-6 = 30
5 = (5*5)-5= 25-5 = 20
_4 = (4*4)-4 = 16-4 = 12_
3 = (3*3)-3 = 9-3 = *6*
_2 = (2*2)-2 = 4-2 = 2_
_1 = (1*1)-1 = 1-1 = 0_
_0 = (0*0)-0 = 0-0 = 0_
_(-3) = ((-3)*(-3))-(-3) = 9 - (-3) = 12_
Recognizing 4 was left out is not genius, merely a trap to get people confused.
Lol this is actually the worst "only a genius can solve this" ever. Im not tryig to say im smart but i can guarantee a lot of people noticed it in 10 seconds
Probably made by Americans
Seriously. But IQ I tend to praise myself but I know my limits. This is so simple. It should be 6. The pattern with the other 2 doesnt care about the left side at all. If there is a pattern on one side there should be one more or less on the other.
I agree. I did, and I'm no genius.
@@isboyle5487?
Yes, Anita, I agree. But the problem is that it's SO simple, it looks to me that no one has actually found THE SIMPLEST answer, which does exist. It is a far better answer t han any of the ones offered in the video, simpler, gets the answer more directly, gets it correct for ANY digit or for negative numbers too, in a symmetrical way, the same answers WITHOUT EVEN REQUIRING A SEQUENTIAL SERIES OF GIVEN DATA to "mine" for patterns.
In short, EVERY ONE of the solutions given gild the lily totally unnecessarily. There is an even simpler, more widely applicable, and stronger solution, and you do not even need a sequence to figure it out. Just get the answers for 3 or 4 integers at random, and you can then predict what the sequence presented as a "problem" will be for every one of its lines, with more simplicity and greater applicability than any of the answers provided in the video.
but there is a method like without the sequence and all. its simple. subtract the number from its square. like 81-9=72, 64-8=56, 49-7=42, 36-6=30, 25-5=20 and just like this without including 4. 9-3=6. simpleeeeeeee
Took me about 5 seconds to figure it out by looking at the thumbnail lol
Yeah same, what a great "IQ test"
I mean it was shared across Facebook so it was clear that the people who were going to be trying this were all over 60.
It tooks me 5s to know it is 6, but then I start to doubt it since we already know 6=30, which is contradictory...
Same but I took 7 to 8 sec
Same bc its very easy
I solved it by looking at the thumbnail, who else
I
Me
Yes
I also do that
Same
The issue with the decreasing subtraction and decreasing multiplication methods is that they're not consistent - they're dependent on the lines above, so if you change the order the answers also change. Ideally these things should be order independent, with the given values merely representing examples of the formula.
Honestly the issue with the other two methods is that people don't notice that 4 was skipped. I did it by decreasing subtraction so if you notice that 4 was skipped and account for that the answer is still equal to 6. So sure it isn't a proof at the moment but it does line up.
No, the consistent formula for "decreasing subtraction" is
a x (a + 1) - (a x 2)
Which is the same as
a^2 - a
or a(a-1)
Which is incidentally the same formula as "decreasing multiplication" and "answer is 6"
The real problem is not applying the formula to 3 due to mistaking 4 for 3.
In any case, this entire "problem" is based on ignoring the entire definition of an equals sign.
in the "function" interpretation, at least each line is a line, and the equal sign is a "function" instead of equals sign.
decreasing subtraction the equals sign is nothing more than a vertical divider on the page, so i consider it the most nonsensical answer.
@@willyolio9590 yeah i agree with u
My solution was n=(n*n) - n, which is completely order-independent. Why was that not listed in the video? Does it have some unforeseen negatives?
All I could see is (X x Y) - X so (8x8)-8 = 64 - 8 .... (5x5)-5 = 20 .. So (3x3) - 3 = 6, I did not even notice the 4 case. But (4x4)-4 = 16-4 = 12.
You can also do it Like this:
9×9-9=72
8×8-8=56
7×7-7=42
6×6-6=30
5×5-5=20
3×3-3=6
Hashtag No name with order of operations 9*9 has to be done first. But brackets definitely help with being clear, for sure.
Gabriel Oliveira Your method is a^2 - a
But algebra says that it's actually the same thing as a*(a-1)
You do realize that the nine times table, increases by nines right? Like 9, 18, 27, 36, etc. so doing 9x9-9 is the same as 9x8. Which is literally the same as every body else, but your way is doing more work. It’s an extra step. Your multiplying a higher number just to subtract it again.
@@CluelessCarter but this solution removes the dependance from the other rows, so it doesn't care about the existance of the 4=12 row.
Solarfyre just do 4x3=12. For the rest 9x8, 8x7, 7x6, etc.
Me: Sees the thumbnail and gets 6.
Also me: let's waste the next 8 minute going over what it took everyone 2 seconds to figure out.
The answer is 12
Not you
@@kevenlee4011 you
15 answer
Omg I agree
welcome to the comment section where everyone suddenly turns in a mathematical genius
Sorry Chris.
@@LupeSunglass it's ok. i don't know what i did to you but i forgive you
I said sorry for all the people acting like a mathematical genius.
i actually usually get these videos wrong or have no idea how to solve, but this one is pretty easy compared to the other problems on this channel
Yeah! They're like, "I got this in 5 seconds"it's like they think their iq is as high as Albert Einstein!
This can also be solved using modular arithmetic and noticing a clear pattern that as the LHS increases, the mod we're working with increases.
For example, 9 is congruent to 72 mod 63, 8 is congruent to 56 mod 48, 7 is congruent to 47 mod 35, and so on. Each time we go down, we're decreasing mod m by the amount previous -2. So, going from 6 is congruent to 30 mod 24, we subtract 9 and get 5 is congruent to 20 mod (24-9=15). So then we subtract 7 and say 4 is congruent to 12 mod (15-7=8), and finally subtract 5 to get 3 is congruent to 6 mod 3 :).
Lost the series with Australia? Justify.
The answer is 3. 3 = 3. The equal sign has a specific meaning, and no number of preceding false statements changes that meaning.
Exactly!
Boom! What’s funny is all the people above saying “how can 99% of people miss this?” Yet whenever it’s posted, roughly 99% of answers are something other than 3.
I'm team 3 = 3!! There are agreed upon rules people. Nowhere in the problem did it state the there is a new way of writing equations.
No, 3 is not equal to 720
If you include the missing 4, all answers will be 6
Exactly, I even tested all 3 methods out just to be sure. They all yield the answer of 6.
It’s only missing 3
6-3 =3
But...
You still need to subtract from 20
3=14
@@eymannassole6162 Which method are you using to get that answer? And what steps did you take to get at your answer?
Impressive that you managed to make a 7 mins video about this ^^
You shorted yourself & the world 49 seconds of wasted life we'll never get back as well.
@@MrsMingo 7 min = 7x60=420 seconds how come 49 seconds?
@@visiblecontent7630
I take it you didn't even watch the video??
The comment I was replying to stated "Impressive that you managed to make a 7 minute video about this ^^" yet the video is actually 7 minutes AND 49 seconds long.
I was merely pointing out to 8Smoker8 that they shorted themselves by 49 seconds.......
You've gone & made my comment far too complicated for absolutely no reason..
Does my explanation now makes sense to you?
I saw the thumbnail and advanced it to the very end to verify my answer was correct.
I quickly wanted to watch it in x2 speed but I was already...
2:35 What about 4=?
9×8=72
8×7=56
7×6=42
6×5=30
5×4=20
Then 4×3=12
Hence:-
3×2=6 is a correct answer
did it also this way
Also he said 12 could have been the answer but that wouldn’t follow the pattern because then 4 would equal 12 and then 3 would equal 6
i did
9x9-9 = 72
8x8-8 = 56
7x7-7 = 42
6x6-6 = 30
5x5-5 = 20
3x3-3 = 6
(extra :
4x4-4 = 12
2x2-2 = 2
1x1-1 = 0
0x0-0 = 0)
6x5 is 30
6/2 = 3
3=15
@@parabolaaaaa4919 there is no logic on your answer lol
Took me less than a minute,
9×8=72
8×7=56
7×6=42
6×5=30
5×4=20
4×3=12
Fozia Jafar exactly what I thought
Should not have taken u ‘less than a minute’ should have taken roughly 4 seconds
Likewise.
I was about to say that he missed the 4 when he tried it in the subtraction one. It would have left him with the correct answer in methods 1 & 2
Took me longer to read the question than to solve it.
a^2 - a
I say this because all of the other methods required more interference, as in the simplest solution within or the solution that has the most solid reasoning should be the default answer.
Wow fascinating
Agreed, but I stated it as a * ( a -1 ) because perhaps not everyone is aware of the use of ^, the power operator. In fact I almost used A**2, but then realized that not everyone has used the Fortran programming language.
@@AlDunbar It's not just fortan language that uses ** for exponents
@@sirmonke8946 understood. But not everyone has done some programming of any kind. Is that syntax used anywhere outside of the programming realm?
@@AlDunbar Not that I know of
There is no rationale for the "decreasing multiplication" method either. One does not have enough information to deduce that the multiplier is independent of the number on the left and instead dependent on the order of appearance in the question, which it would have to be, for the multiplier of 3 to be 3 instead of 2.
Answer is 14 w/out invalid assumptions. See my comment.
Correct.
And then there's a fourth group that found the quartic function that passes through all the given points and solved it for x=3.
And then a fifth group did the same thing as the fourth, but subtracted the corresponding values from f(x) = 0.5*ln(x) from the inputs of the process so that, after deriving their quartic function, they could add an arbitrary logarithmic element to the end of it. This was all done so that _their_ function would give all the correct values given in the riddle, but would give a completely different but equally valid value at x=3 just to make the fourth group look bad.
And then a sixth group saw how much fun and internet prestige the fifth group had received from mocking the fourth group, and tried to jump on the band wagon by doing the same thing with f(x) = 0.2*SQRT(x) + 8, but it didn't catch on because no one noticed the pun.
And then a seventh group discovered that the sequence of values given in the riddle corresponded directly to a series of numbers on the back of a DVD box cover of "Rush Hour 2" and thus came to conclusion that the correct answer was "Jackie Chan".
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHSSHSHSHSHSHHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHHSH
woah
What’s the pun?
@@ThomasTheThermonuclearBomb Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding! Congratulations! You've won the Jake Eyes Weekly, Monthly, or However-long-before-I-get-an-opportunity-to-give-out-one-of-these-againly Humility Award!
Because there is no pun! I was gaslighting you all into _believing_ there was one to see who would be the first to have the humility to admit that they didn't get it. And the winner is Thomas the Thermonuclear Bomb!
As for the rest of you, do us all a favor and feel ashamed of yourselves! Unless, of course, you're late to the party and didn't discover this comment until after the Humility award was claimed. In that case, you should know that my original comment had 15 likes at the time Tommy the Nuke admitted the passage of the placebo pun over his pate, which means at least 14 other people read the comment before someone was secure enough in their intelligence to admit the simulated wooshery.
Assuming this ratio correlates with the greater this-comment-thread-reading population, this means that you likely would have had, at most, a 1 in 15 probability of being humble enough to admit supercranial wordplay locomotion, so doctors suggest taking approximately 93.3% of your daily recommended dose of humiliation.
Of course, if anyone somehow _does_ manage to find a pun that I didn't notice, please post it below to claim the Jake Eyes Hopefully-not-to-oftenly Bested the Architect Award! I promise I will be WAY too captivated by the coincidence to express my jealously of your intellect in the form of crass, defensive verbal abuse. It will, instead, take the form of crass, defensive textual abuse, as has been and will be the custom here on RUclips until the platform implements a voicemail feature in fulfillment of certain passages of the Book of Revelation.
This is the last place I expected to find you, Mr. Jake Eyes
ACTUALLY THE ANSWER IS NOT 6. IT IS 30!!
ABOVE SAYS 6 = 30.
So 3=6=30!!
Thats actually the most correct thing I could have expect in the comments
But if 6=30 then 30=6 so it doesnt matter
It doesnt matter since 6=30 then :T
Math abuse by pesh tewaker.
That would mean 3=6=30=870 and so on, by that logic 3=infinity, so that too is incorrect
i solved it before he finished the intro
wow so smart
Jessica I solved it when looking at the thumbnail
Same here, really easy
same lol
Jessica same
That thumbnail is a literal mobile ad😂😂😂😂
I easily came up with the first solution 6. You just wanna catch a common pattern with "simplest" relation. The other two add unnecessary complication and interjection into it.
If you look at the middle solution - the answer is wrong because the number skips from 5 to 3 completely ignoring the 4 in between. So if it was the middle equation then the next number would be 12 but subtracting 6. The next number (3) would be 6-4 so the last number would be 2. (hope i've made sense!!)
Good call, the pattern was obvious straight away. 20+10=30 , 30+12=42 and so on. I've found these videos to overly complicate simple patterns . I just watched two in a row and got them quick. All hail the math genius.
99% Failed It
Me after solving by seeing the thumbnail : I'm gonna redefine mathematics
"Only a genius can find the correct answer." seems like I'mma be a genius overnight.
Yep, me too, I solved in two secs, the answer I got is 3 equals 3.
I get 3.
Ikr i am genius as well ( i wise i were damn it 😭)
I was debating whether I should add the line for 4= or not... I was wondering if it was left out on purpose or not... so I had both 6 and 9 as possible answers depending on if we should add the row for 4= or not.
For the Decreasing subtraction method, I think you actually have to also calculate what 4 would equal before skipping to 3, or else that wouldn't be a pattern.
5 = 20, minus 8 =12
4 = 12, minus 6 = 6
so 3 is 6 if we use that method correctly.
he literally says it at 4:37
@@lowenbarbe6229 oh ok, I didn't watch it that far. I would assume he would say it right after. but he went to another method so I thought he was done dealing with it
@@Karen-nh4su you assumed wrong then
What I did :)
Karen, that is what I did...(account for the missing 4).
It took me about 10 seconds to come up with the first answer. When he introduced the other two answers I thought I was gonna be proven wrong or something lol
All the problems of this type have the same answer: There is an almost infinite number of mathematical sequences that fit any given list of elements. This is especially true if the number of elements given is low.
No set of numbers can be uniquely described.
tl;dr: if you ask ill-defined questions you will get ill-defined answers
Its either infinite or finite. Almost infinite does not make sense.
@@ianbottomley9303 Sure it does.
Certainly more sense than trying to police youtube comments on technicalities.
@@TheVergile Almost infinite does not make sense. What is almost infinite multiplied by 2? Almost infinite?
@@ianbottomley9303 "almost infinite" is hyperbole. It's not supposed to be a literal statement.
@@ianbottomley9303 as opposed to infinity multiplied by 2, which makes a lot more sense...
It's 6. The other two answers notice a pattern in the second column, but ignore the pattern in the first column. The fact that the pattern in the first column changes after 5 suggests that we're "skipping ahead" to 3. So you'd need to "skip ahead" in the second column as well, which as the second half of the video shows, would get you 6 no matter which formula you use.
This is actually extremely easy. I solved it just by looking at the thumbnail.
Same but I watch the video just to make sure because I second guess myself alot idkwhy I do that
wow, so smart, let me clap
Agree. Seemed easy to me.
@@50AHenry the issue with this sort of problems is that some of them can have more than one pattern so just because you thought of another one than the one asking the question, doesn't mean you were wrong.
me too
Bruh I thought he was about to be like: but it’s actually none of those 3 it’s actually tan((sqrt3)!)^2
Please, no
Please explain or prove this.🧐
@@aayushkumar8026 r/woooosh
Funniest thing about this is that (sqrt3)! is undefined
@@yolochip4889 r/woooosh
That was probably one of the easiest problems I have ever solved
No
@@leonwelz5172 Yes
Same
I got a harder one: whats 3 - 2????
I myself cant solve it. I think it might be 27.... yea that makes sense
Yup I got 6 in less than 30 secs
5:35 i had the same idea, it has a pattern and its skipping one line, meaning 6 is the correct answer by deductive reasoning based on the pattern presented.
I feel lile people who create these puzzles are just writting random stuff , making them just to see people arguing about the right answer.
😂 So idle
@@shahnazwm I look it like this if it's right for you then that's good enough, people can always find an argument for another answer,But that just mean they li8ke to nock the system It's biut like saying the earth is not round even though we all know it is.
,
9=72 ... is false. A false statement implies anything, so all answers are correct, including 3=4,563,792 and 3=my left foot.
Intan
Andrian Mustopa Intan
Such problems must be solved by SUPPOSING that 9=72, as well as by following the specific pattern you have been given
@@anastasiaxxx4718 ya but it don't be like that
You are the true 1% we dumbasses just searched for patterns XD
3=6 end of story
Yup
Nah 9
3=3 the rest is fake news simple
@TheCzheng x1 = (1-✓34)/2 ≈ -2.415475...
x2 = (1+✓34)/2 ≈ 3.415475...
I did my own method which was:
(A) = (A x A) - A
100% of the people who say 12 is the correct answer didn't notice this that they missed 4 in between. 😁
@sravanth ch I had the same procedure and saw that 4 was missing so my answer was 6 xD
@@ShadowShiranui 😄
Wow. Youre absolutely right 😄😄😄
I said that it was 12 because I used math by setting up a proportion instead of using patterns
Just watch the video to the end and you'll be fine
Me: *sees thumbnail*
Also me: *solves*
Also also me: *checks anyway because this seems like a trick question*
This is probably the only one I got right from this channel so far 🤣
Nice me too
Me too bro
Then we are twins 🤣
Meeee tooooooo
So true
Does anyone know there are 2 possible answers?
No,nobody knows that.
9×9 =81
81-9= 72
8×8=64
64-8=56
7×7=49
49-7=42
6×6=36
36-6=30
5×5=25
25-5=20
4×4=16
16-4=12
3×3=9
9-3=6
thats exactly what i did lol
I like your thinking
x(x-1)=x^2-x thats why it works both ways
So basically
N x (N-1)
Cuz multiplication is repeated addition, and subtracting N just makes the number you're subtracting by 1 less.
9×5 kavitha
Anyone find the answer by multiplying the independent by itself, then subtracting itself to get the dependent?
Yep,that's what i did but its the same as the first method in the video
Did the first
ohh
its the same thing smh
I multiplied it by itself minus 1
The answer 12 is bs?
Decreasing subtraction means 4 =12 and 3 =6 as the 4 is still missing on the left?! 🤔
I thought the same und was looking for this comment
I thought it’s would be x3 so 4x3=12
And the decreasing multiplication is the same thing it also skips four
@@pizzasquad6456 u can all actually watch the vid and then comment
You could also just do the number x the number previous:
9 x 8 = 72
8 x 7 = 56
7 x 6 = 42
6 x 5 = 30
5 x 4 = 20
4 x 3 = 12
3 x 2 = 6
2 x 1 = 2
1 x 0 = 0
Honestly, the a(a-1) solution just makes more sense, and works more easily for any other number you want to find in the pattern, just based on how variables work
Times tables helped a lot with this one. I noticed the decending order and how the product of each two top/bottom adjecent numbers was repeatedly the solution, so when it came to the 4 and then three I was convinced that you would multiply the bigger number by a value that was itself minus one.
I wrote the value that would need to multiply to become the product to the right of each equation, and each one was the value directly below it.
Like:
Product = (itself - 1) x (itself)
9=72 =x 8
8=56 =× 7
...
4=12 =× 3
...
3=6 =× 2
Was happy to get the right answer.
Too easy.
3 x 2 = 6
same here!
i got 14 somehow
@@Watersquarerer surely you know how...
I used decreasing subtraction method and got 6 by adding missing line.
Peter Njeim yeah some ppl seemed to miss out the 4 for some reason
Peter Njeim same
They are called "dumb people".
ikr
+JGcool24 Oh thanks, of course, my perception depends on my intelligence, elite perfect human being.
To me, I just see it as the equasion 𝑦 = 𝑥² - 𝑥, where the left hand column of the question is the 𝑦 values, and the right hand column is the 𝑥 values, with this equasion you see that 6 = 3² - 3, 6 = 9 - 3, 6 = 6, so it checks out, and infact with this you can solve the equasion for all values of 𝑥 including non-natural numbers.
If the 4 didn't matter then there wouldn't be any numbers on the left, just a series and a question about the next number. The numbers on the left, however, so the result should be solely based on the index rather than which result was previously asked about. Basically, there should be a rule(function) that relates the index and result without depending on the results of other indices.
The 4 is simply missing to confuse.
It's amazing how everyone would've gotten (what I see to be) the correct answer if the second and third groups had both considered that the pattern is skipped over 4. If you insert 4 into the pattern, all three solutions give you 3 = 6
Exactly!
Saw the thumbnail, instantly saw the equivalence relation as: a->a(a-1). It’s cool to see it thought of as decreasing subtraction as well. In my opinion this was pretty straight forward, you definitely don’t need to be a “genius” to solve this. That being said, it’s nothing to be ashamed of if it was tricky for anyone!
I can’t help but click on these videos to see if my solution is “correct” lol.
Equivalence relation? So it is reflexive, symmetric and transitive? How?
@@andream61 oh no you’re right it’s not those things, I should’ve probably used the word “mapping” instead of “equivalence relation” here. I used the wording “equivalence relation” because equal signs were used here, and I forgot about the strict mathematical meaning of the term, but no it’s not an equivalence relation in the theoretical math sense sorry for the confusion. It’s just a mapping, right?
Same. Took 10s to solve it. No genius by any means...
i knew it was six just by looking at the thumbnail
Same
Same because it’s SUPER EASY.
Looked at the thumbnail for 3 seconds or less, got 6. Spent another 5 seconds confirming (9 x 8 = 72, 8 x 7 = 56, 7 x 6 = 42, etc)
Seems pretty simple since I could answer AND verify my answer in under 10 seconds, but I'll watch the video now to see if I missed something.
9=72. 9×8
8=56. 8×7
7=42. 7×6
6=30. 6×5
5=20. 5×4 next skip
4=12. 4×3
3=6. 3×2 (sequence)
I got x^2-x
Kalu Kumataya I did exactly the same!
For once, we get the same answer. I noted the missing "line", included it in my sequence and got an answer of 6.Don't think it makes me a genius - just careful.
In my case, I did note the skipping of 4. In my head, either 4 was skipped or left out. I got '6' as a possible answer by assuming that 4 was implied, but still part of the set. I got '9' as a possible answer by assuming that 4 wasn't implied, and therefore not part of the set, but the second side was decreasing multiplication that always decreased by the same value. When you brought up the possibility of '12', and how to get that number, I realized a third possible option for the implied column. Since 5 went straight to 3, it was possible that the implied column would decrement in a similar fashion. For the (n[n-1]) possibility, this is built in. For the decreasing multiplication possibility, this happens when you assume that 4 is skipped. For the decreasing subtraction possibility, this changes the result. Instead of simply subtracting 2 from the value that is being subtracted from the preceding result, you need to subtract 2[x], where x = a - b, with a = the initial column or the previous line, and b = the initial column of the current line. Here, we would be subtracting 4 (2[2]), instead of 2, from the previous number of 10, making 6 being subtracted from 20. 20 - 6 = 14. So for the decreasing subtraction method under this assumption, we get 3 = 14.
I got one more logic......infact its the very first logic to click my mind....it is
9²-9=72
8²-8=56
7²-7=42
6²-6=30
5²-5=20
4²-4=12
So
It should be
3²-3=6.......
I got my answer by squaring each number and then subtracting the base from the product. It is quite amazing how many ways there are to think about it.
That's because it's a function: f(x) = x * (x-1) , if you simply expand the brackets you get to your solution which is x^2 - x.
the decreasing substraction method comes to the conclusion that the difference between f(x+1) and f(x) is 2x, which can also be derived from your formula:
f(x) = x^2 - x we get f(x+1) by replacing x with x+1
f(x+1) = (x+1)^2 - (x+1) expanding the brackets
= x^2 + 2x + 1 - x - 1 rearranging and crossing out the +1 and -1
= x^2 - x + 2x replacing x^2 - x with f(x)
= f(x) + 2x
if we substract 2x from both sides we get f(x+1) - 2x = f(x) which is our decreasing substraction method
One way I did it as to remove everything but the last row of numbers. Keep 72, 56, 42, 30, 20,(add0 the missing 12) & you get 6
Boy, that's just multiplying it by itself minus one.
Same thought process here. Can see how some problems like really demonstrate numbers can have differing relationships with each other. Would be annoying in a test if it were deemed only one answer was correct with only the same initial information.
That's simply because x^2 - x = x * (x-1)...
The answer is 6.
It took me 8 seconds to figure the answer.
I took 3 seconds
I took 0.1 seconds because I instabuzzed and solved it in that 5 seconds
if you don't get it its okay lol
I just subtracted the 2 numbers less than 5 seconds shits easy
me too but i was tricked, after answearing 6 i thought "damn that is too straightforward it must be a trap, there must be something more than just 6" so i changed my answear to 12 after seeing the other path 😭😭😭
Yeah that was easy😂😂
There is an additional possible solution: 14.
(72-2*8=56; 56-2*7=42; 42-2*6=30; 30-2*5=20; 20-2*3=14)
Beside that, no presented solution takes into account that the first column contains the oban numbers.
Again, this has a similar "missing line" problem that the other solutions had - you've missed 4. If you included 4, you'd get 20-2*4 = 12 and 12 - 2*3 = 6.
@@MrDFive5 In the possible solution i presented, all numbers on the left side are exclusively oban numberse (hence my criticism, that no presented solution uses that fact) which means that there is no "missing line".
But then how do you calculate 72. The point of a pattern is that they work independently, but this method makes it so it requires a number above to solve. On another note, yes, you did skip the 4th line, cause it should have been 20-2*4=12 and then do 12-2*3=6. If you cant just pick up a random number at the left and get an answer at the right side of the equation that invalidates any solution. If you wanted to calculate say, what number was attached to 81, you'd have to start from number 9 to calculate what number you're substracting, so it isnt efficient at all
@@kristophesiem5336 Though i disagree about what you consider to be the point of a pattern, it can be described the way you seem to prefer.
If oban(i) is the i-th oban number,
setOban(j) is the set of the first j oban numbers,
sum(set_A) is the sum of all numbers in set_A and
value(term_T) is the decimal value of term_t,
then the pattern type you seem to be after, can be described as the string:
"oban(n) = Value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(n-1)))"
3 = oban(1); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(1-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({})) = 14
5 = oban(2); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(2-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3})) = 20
6 = oban(3); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(3-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5})) = 30
7 = oban(4); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(4-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6})) = 42
8 = oban(5); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(5-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7})) = 56
9 = oban(6); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(6-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7, 8})) = 72
10 = oban(7); value(14 + 2 * sum(setOban(7-1))) = value(14 + 2 * sum({3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9})) = 90
...
You can only skip, what exists. As you can see above all lines are used, so nothing is left to be skipped.
It seems, you are basing your reasoning on the assumption that the numbers on the left side (or the summands on the right side) have to be natural numbers. But nothing in the task demands that. Therefore i am free to ignore such an arbitrary assumption, when searching for a solution.
My solution also doesn't provide a line starting with 81 because "eighty one" also contains the letter 'o'.
@@derwolf7810 You claim that the left side having to be a natural pattern is nothing more than an arbitrary assumption. Yet it remains a very obvious pattern. The left side subtracts by 1 each row. You deliberately ignore the established pattern in your assessment. You say you can "choose" to ignore the assumption and make your own assumption, leading to a different solution, but that doesn't mean your answer is correct. You can't pick and choose your assumptions when they contradict evidence. That's why it's an assumption and not a guess, as it is based on reason rather than randomness.
There is an established pattern and, because the 4 is missing, the conclusion is that one must assume that there is a row missing. The logical solution is that the missing 4 has to be taken into account.
Your solution checks out when one makes the assumption that the 4 is not missing. But that assumption is not logical.
And while all numbers on the left are oban numbers and therefore establish a different pattern, that doesn't suddenly make it more logical. They start at 9 on the left, while 10 and 11 are also oban numbers. Why 9? That seems random. And it would only consider the left side as the right side contains numbers with 'o' in them. The question it really comes down to is whether oban is a logical justification to validate your solition and it appears more random than the missing 4.
So, logic dictates 3=14 is not a logical solution
Everyone who said 3=3: Are we a joke to you?
** Written while the video was playing.
The second 2 fails to account for the change in the pattern of the first numbers.
Premise:
9=72-16=56
8=56-14=42
7=42-12=30
6=30-10=20
5=20-8=12
Then:
4=12-6=6
3=6
The subtraction would then have the pattern of being a=a(-1)-2(a-1)
And by this logic the third option will actually end up the same as the first. So the answer is always 6.
good good yes you are very smort
EXACTLY, IT'S 4 THERE
4 = 12
Then - 6
3 = 6
Exactly since it follows the sequence of n^2 - n, it never changes, otherwise there's no answer since it follows no sequence
15 ans