Lemmiwinks Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 You saw a tshirt for 97€. You didn't have the cash so you borrowed 50€ from your mom and 50€ from your dad. 50€ + 50€ = 100€ You bought the shirt and had 3€ change. You gave your dad 1€ and your mom 1€ and you kept 1€ for yourself. Since you already gave mom and dad 1€ you now owe them 49€ each. 49€ + 49€ = 98€ + your 1€ = 99€ Where is the missing €??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agneton Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hm... 49 euros + 49 euros + 2 euros u already gave 'em = 100 euros This riddle is just making wrong assertions in order to confuse, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLoUr DoTZ Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Pretty expensive tshirt......, you didn´t tell your parents the money was for a tshirt, did you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted September 13, 2012 Author Share Posted September 13, 2012 Hm... 49 euros + 49 euros + 2 euros u already gave 'em = 100 euros This riddle is just making wrong assertions in order to confuse, right? but then it would be 49€ + 49€ + 2€ you already gave them + 1€ in your pocket = 101€, you would basically make 1€ out of nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agneton Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Well, yeah I thought about that too first, but then... you owed them 100, and from the 3 euros u have left u only use 2 to pay em back. so that's still 98 euros left they both need from you. The fact that you kept one euro for yourself is just irrelevant in determining your amount of debts against the parents (i think) Hope I'm making sense... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 but then it would be 49€ + 49€ + 2€ you already gave them + 1€ in your pocket = 101€, you would basically make 1€ out of nothing No. You've given your parents 98€ of your own money, you have 1€ left over and a shirt that's worth 97€. You've made nothing. e: How the hell do I put a Euro sign in my post? Whatever I try it comes out b0rk3d. e2: Never mind, I figured it out. e3: Oh, for fuck's sake. Editing my post just made all the Euro signs I'd painstakingly inserted get broken again. IPB sucks so fucking hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 I think this is one of those things like the Monty Hall problem, where the result stops being counterintuitive when the numbers involved are changed. Suppose the shirt costs $1 (I'm using a currency I can represent with one keypress rather than five, so TAKE THAT EUROPE) but you still borrow $50 from each of your parents, and suppose that you then give each of your parents $1 from the change you receive for the shirt and keep the remaining $97. Now try applying the same reasoning as the OP: Since you already gave mom and dad $1 you now owe them $49 each. $49 + $49 = $98 + your $97 = $195 But so what, right? $98 is what you have to give your parents, $97 is what you now have. Subtracting one from the other tells you that you will end up $1 poorer while you're wearing your $1 shirt, whereas adding one to the other tells you nothing of interest. But for some reason people get confused when the numbers involved are more like those in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormion Posted September 13, 2012 Share Posted September 13, 2012 Imagine that the 50 euros your parent gave you were 50 coins of 1 euro. By giving them their 1 euro back is like you taken 49 coins in the first place. So 49+49=98. The shirt costed 97 and you have 1 euro change. Technically you never borrowed 100 euros. You borrowed 98 since the 2 euros you gave them back were already theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle ninja Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 Bullpucky! What shirt costs 100 euros? My mom or dad would never give me that much for a shirt. AND if that's how bad your math is, you should use the money on a math book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 A real-world mindbending problem is this: A man receives two invites for distinct dinners held at the same time, but in difference places in the same block. He leaves home to attend one of them. Next morning people that were in the two parties tell that they saw him at the party they were at too. Meaning he was in two different parties at the same time. How could this happen? If you find a solution, you have right now one million dollars waiting for you. Later, contracts worth billions of dollars. Plus, fame and a name in history like Eistein's. And, the situation above does happen in real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted September 14, 2012 Author Share Posted September 14, 2012 A real-world mindbending problem is this: A man receives two invites for distinct dinners held at the same time, but in difference places in the same block. He leaves home to attend one of them. Next morning people that were in the two parties tell that they saw him at the party they were at too. Meaning he was in two different parties at the same time. How could this happen? If you find a solution, you have right now one million dollars waiting for you. Later, contracts worth billions of dollars. Plus, fame and a name in history like Eistein's. And, the situation above does happen in real world. umm... he was an actor and they saw him on tv? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 No, Lemmi. I liked your imagination. But it's not the case. Well, if this is of any help, even Eistein was confronted with this problem and couldn't find a solution. It is one of the reasons he said his famous "God does not play dice" sentence. A single particle, say, a electron is fired thru two doors. Of course it has to pass by one of them, as it is a single entity. However, it passes by the two doors at the same time. It is as if you left your bedroom and turned left to the kitchen, and at the same time turned right to the bathroom. You are one, but are in the two places at the same time. Mindbending? Yes, for classical physics says it's impossible matter to ocupy two places at the same time. Is it important? It is, for the very computer we're using now uses the technology derived from the "one in two places" mystery. We use it, but we still don't know how it happens. That is why there are some technology institutes that offer prizes for the explanation. Millions of dollars. And the discoverer of the mystery will have done what Eistein himself couldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 A single particle, say, a electron is fired thru two doors. Of course it has to pass by one of them, as it is a single entity. However, it passes by the two doors at the same time. But this does not imply that the situation you describe in your earlier post is plausible. The fact that an electron can pass through two slits simultaneously is used to explain why the probability distribution of a single electron that has passed through an interferometer exhibits an interference pattern, but the electron is never directly observed to be in two places at once. According to widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics, the act of observing an object's position either forces its state to collapse into a single position (according to the Copenhagen interpretation), or makes the states of different positions become decoherent so that they no longer have any interaction with one another (according to the many-universes interpretation). Either way what you describe can't happen: you'll never meet two people who observed you in two different places at once. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 But this does not imply that the situation you describe in your earlier post is plausible. The fact that an electron can pass through two slits simultaneously is used to explain why the probability distribution of a single electron that has passed through an interferometer exhibits an interference pattern, but the electron is never directly observed to be in two places at once. According to widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics, the act of observing an object's position either forces its state to collapse into a single position (according to the Copenhagen interpretation), or makes the states of different positions become decoherent so that they no longer have any interaction with one another (according to the many-universes interpretation). Either way what you describe can't happen: you'll never meet two people who observed you in two different places at once. You are absolutely right. Decoherence makes the multi-position phenomena collapse into a single state, the one we observe. However, quantum scientists are making the interference experiment with larger and larger particles. Some are saying that in a distant future, the situation created above wlll be observed, given we find the right technology to "see" it in macro world. As for the impossibility, take it as the Schrodinger's cat experiment: it helps the mind to see it, though the experiment itself is impossible to carry out to this day. Cats are relieved for that. Call it a poetic license, if you will. It is not easy to imagine the multi-position phenomena if you don't bring closer home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Well, back to numbers then: observe this sequence 1 2 5 13 29 53 X What number is X? Level: easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kathmandu Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 This explains everything. http://www.sitepoint.com/who-knew-there-was-a-market-for-100-t-shirts/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLoUr DoTZ Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Next morning people that were in the two parties tell that they saw him at the party they were at too. He only went to one party and went bunkers. It is People who were at both parties, who saw him going bananas in the Darkpsy room. Where is my money?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLoUr DoTZ Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Well, back to numbers then: observe this sequence 1 2 5 13 29 53 X What number is X? Level: easy. 1 2 5 13 29 53 107 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemmiwinks Posted September 15, 2012 Author Share Posted September 15, 2012 This explains everything. http://www.sitepoint.com/who-knew-there-was-a-market-for-100-t-shirts/ lol the only link between that webpage and the mindbender is that they both talk about tshirts priced at 100 1 2 5 13 29 53 107 I still don't get it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLoUr DoTZ Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I still don't get it... every following number in the series ist the next higher prime number to the double amount of the preceding number. 1x2=2 as is prime number, stays 2x2=4 following prime number is 5 5x2=10 and so on....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 every following number in the series ist the next higher prime number to the double amount of the preceding number. 1x2=2 as is prime number, stays 2x2=4 following prime number is 5 5x2=10 and so on....... But the next prime number after 10 is 11, not 13... Personally I'm stumped. If the final number had been 47 instead of 53 then the sequence, excluding the initial 1, would be the sequence of p o t, where p is the sequence of primes and t is the sequence of triangular numbers. But 53 is the 16th prime, not the 15th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLoUr DoTZ Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 But the next prime number after 10 is 11... Very true........... I just don´t like the number 11......... Well, then 107 might not be the correct answer........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procyon Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Huh...you guys gonna throw peanuts at me, but I forgot a number out of the sequence and introduced a wrong one. The correct sequence is: 1 2 5 13 29 47 X Well, you can throw some coins instead of peanuts. I won't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Then the answer's 73, for the reason I've already given. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotwang Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Here's a sequence I rather like: 1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, ... What comes next? For bonus points, what is the highest digit that appears in this sequence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.