Skip to main content

Clever clickbait or disappointingly dumb?

Every now and then something turns up on Facebook that has been shared by 100 bazillion people, with a heading like '99% of people will get this wrong.' Some of these posts are just tedious (like the ones that depend on the order in which you apply mathematical operations), but the one illustrated here apparently has some merit - it looks like a straightforward reverse logic problem. But in reality it seems specifically designed to cause confusion. 
The problem here is that the sequence does not have a single solution. At the very least you can make an argument for 40 or 96, and stretching things a little, 32 gets a look in.

For me, 96 was the most obvious solution - the process to get the right hand value is multiply the two items on the left and add the first of the original numbers. As for 32, it comes from totally ignoring the items on the left and making the sequence of solutions progress regularly - in this case, the first two are separated by 7, the second two by 9, so it seems reasonable to separate the third pair by 11. And, yes, 40 also makes sense, by adding the solution of the previous line to the left hand side of the next line. (I don't know how someone made it 35.)

But why is it designed to cause confusion? Because the people who put it together know we will disagree, and that increases the number of comments. The problem is, as I've mentioned previously, when thinking about logic problems, we are conditioned to expect one correct answer. But like most real world problems, this is a problem that does not have a single correct answer. Each of 32, 40 and 96 is a perfectly respectable value. And no doubt there are others as well. Which is to be welcomed - it's a shame we feel the urge to put forward one particular answer as 'correct', for which we can probably blame the limitations of our education. The designers of this post know that we have been programmed to search for THE right answer, and so exploit us accordingly.

Comments

  1. Brian

    Think ye not in decimal. But let me know if you want another correct answer.

    Ian

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Feel free, though the point really wasn’t about what the solutions are, more the urge for there to be one correct solution.

      Delete
  2. If you treat the left hand side of the puzzle in decimal, the answers in decimal have been restated in Base6, Base5, Base4 and Base3. The answer is 201 in Base3.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...