You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
230 - 220 x 0.5 = ?
You won't believe it, but the answer is actually 5!
Spoler alert
5 isn't the answer to the problem as you have written it there.
You were asked a different question if the answer is 5.
Surely only if you ignore operator precedence (although it did take me 3 goes to get my O'level).
Unless maths has changed, the answer is 120
5! - very clever
You were asked a different question if the answer is 5.
The answer isn't 5. Its 5!
The answer is 120 as multiplication takes precedence over subtraction as linked to by @jam bo
For the answer to be 5 it would have to be written like this:
(230 - 220) x 0.5
The answer isn’t 5. Its 5!
Fair play. Well done.
As it is written, the answer is definitely 5!
I wrote it very carefully.
The answer is definitely 5!
then the question isn't the one you asked for the reasons given above
then the question isn’t the one you asked for the reasons given above
It is.
This is obviously a trick question and there is something you are not getting.
5!=120
Not a trick question - a trick answer
then the question isn’t the one you asked for the reasons given above
It is
The answer isn’t 5. Its 5!
Finally got it.
Although it would have been nice if the rules of written English had been followed 😉
"You won’t believe it, but the answer is actually 5!."
very clever, didn't click til I'd read a few comments.
The answer is definitely 5!
then the question isn’t the one you asked for the reasons given above
5! = 5*4*3*2*1
I agree and i have 3/4 maths degree.
I stand by my "you have to follow the rules of both English and Maths with your brain teasers" comment 🙂
You won’t believe it, but the answer is actually 5!.
Since when has a sentence needed a full stop after an exclamation mark wwaswas?
Ok, I do believe it.
Since when has a sentence needed a full stop after an exclamation mark wwaswas?
since the exclamation mark was part of the mathematical notation being used rather than the sentence it was contained in.
If it was written as;
220-120x5=5!
I wouldn't have asked for a full stop.
Saw this the other day. It's correct, and quite clever.
If it was written as;
220-120×5=5!
I wouldn’t have asked for a full stop.
If it was written like that then it'd be completely wrong, punctuation pedantry or no.
(And you need a colon on the first line there, not a semicolon.)
I initially got my Boolean logic mixed up with my maths. Much better when you put 5 factorial (er I think) in.
Still, following the rules of English, the answer is 5!. There's no getting away from this.
This is the third dog all over again.
Loved that video!
Very good. Luckily I read all the outraged posts before I added my own.
Still, following the rules of English, the answer is 5!.
It absolutely does not need a .!
https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/externalrelations/services/service-details/style-guide/punctuation.aspx
(near the end)
It absolutely does not need a .!
You're confusing an exclamation mark and the mathematical symbol for factorial!
I see you now!
Fermat’s Last Theorem was also deceptively simple to outline.
Turns out that actually proving it caused a bit of a kerfuffle.
Simon Singh’s book on the subject is a brilliant piece of popular science writing and I recommend it wholeheartedly.
I liked that problem.
Cunning 🙂
That's really rather beautiful
I've learnt something new!
Ta, Molgrips