[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 447
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
To Alexei, Vladimir (-that and the other one), I don't want to offend you, but .......
. Reading the thread. Intelligent people, with excellent mathematical abilities, but you are engaged in such ...... instead of using your abilities for their intended purpose. So it turns out that those who have, do not want, and those who want - do not have ..... And what's interesting is that you're ....
and that's not the point. For any brain to solve a problem in which it is certain that there is a solution is....
we've been taught since high school that all problems are solvable, even those with asterisks... and even the most advanced Olympiads too. everything has a solution... and that's why a brain recharged by inertia can't stop trying to solve a problem. And neither Alexey or Vladimir, nor even I, can stop trying to solve any problem.
If you have not solved a problem, you have betrayed yourself, because you are certain that there are no unsolvable problems. And once you've brushed it off and said it's a bummer, you may have destroyed your world view as a result. You have admitted your weakness to the person who gave you the problem. And the easier the condition of the task, the harder it is to refuse it.
And with life it's quite the opposite sometimes. They do not tell you about life at school and do not solve life's problems and situations, and people often think that they got into a hopeless situation, and their arms and heads droop. But the principle is the same. All problems can be solved, even with asterisks, but you cannot look at the end of the textbook, because no one has ever returned from there.
The numbers are 13 and 4 (P=52, C=17). Let's assume I picked this one up by accident :)
...................___________________________
So, with this pairing - 4,13 - the conversation of the wise men will take place completely.
But I have one more candidate. We'll check it out later.
ValS, give me your second solution - and I'll refute it :)
I was told on the Mechmatics forum that the program is already dishonest. By doing so I was hinted that there is a not too hard way to analytically deduce the solution and prove its uniqueness.
ValS, give me your second solution - and I'll refute it :)
I was told on the Mechmatics forum that the programme is no longer fair.
Refute 3 and 4, please. This is for starters... ))
I.e. P=12, C=7?
I.e. P=12, C=7?
It's clear here: A says: "I can't", but B can't say "I knew from the beginning that you wouldn't guess". The script of the conversation is broken.
For the sum of 7, B has only 2 options: 2+5 (hence the single-digit decomposition into multipliers, which also does not give B the right to say that he knew it) and 3+4. B can even say: "I know the numbers" (probably the only option when B is ahead of A).
It's pretty clear: "A" says: "I can't", but B can't say "I knew from the beginning you wouldn't guess". The script of the conversation is ruined.
For the sum of 7, B has only 2 options: 2+5 (hence the single-digit decomposition into multipliers, which also does not give B the right to say that he knew it) and 3+4. B can even say, "I know the numbers" (probably the only option where B is ahead of A).
So let me try it this way:
А<-12
Б <-7
1. "A sees that his product can be decomposed into multipliers in more than one way (2*6 = 3*4), so he says: I can't find those numbers.
2. "B" sees the sum as odd, which, however, also does not explicitly appear as a sum (2 + 5 = 3 + 4), so he says that he knew in advance that "A" will not succeed. I think the key word here is precisely in advance .
After "B" said "in advance", "A" understood the problem and chose one of the two pairs, and told "B" about it.
However, there is one inconsistency here. "B" could have already named the numbers in the second step. Yeah, that's how it works. It's strange, I'll look at the code where I messed up.)
No, wrong in point 2, ValS.
B did not know in advance that A would fail: he saw in advance that a combination of 2+5 was possible, in which A could know the numbers immediately. Yes, he saw it, but he hadn't heard A's line yet - and so he couldn't have known in advance that A wouldn't figure out the numbers.
And about the inconsistency - yes, that's exactly right.
Any other options with other numbers?