[Archive!] Pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.: brain-training problems not related to trade in any way - page 430
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
No match!!!
The first wise man wouldn't have said he couldn't find those numbers then!
Why would it? The condition doesn't say anything about psychological tricks or cheating. What is not forbidden is allowed. It's the same in all the problems. If a geometric proof problem doesn't say that additional constructions are forbidden, we can use them with the right to do so. If you want pundits in the dialogue to tell only the truth, the problem should be reformulated.
Why is that all of a sudden? The condition doesn't say anything about psychological tricks or cheating. What is not forbidden is allowed. It's the same in all the problems. If a geometric proof problem doesn't say that additional constructions are forbidden, we can use them with the right to do so. If you want the pundits in the dialogue to tell only the truth, then the problem needs to be reworded.
You are being unconstructive.
You are being unconstructive.
No offence - the good thing about constructive criticism is that it does not simply demolish the opponent's thesis, but offers an alternative solution. I was just suggesting a solution to reformulate the problem. Whatever way you look at it, it's a constructive solution and you can't get rid of it. Sorry if I was too direct - I didn't intend to hurt anyone's ego.
Don't be offended - the good thing about constructive criticism is that it not only destroys your opponent's thesis, but also offers an alternative solution. I just proposed a solution to reformulate the problem. Whatever way you look at it, it's a constructive solution and you can't get rid of it. Sorry if I was too direct - I didn't intend to hurt anyone's ego.
But your methods can screw up any task, including a production one.
Well, if you want, then so be it: both are telling the truth, they are not wrong, and there is one more nuance here. Both wise men are sure that there is a solution and that it is the only one. It is a very important condition. But you have to guess it yourself, there is nothing about it in the problem.)
But with your methods you can screw up any problem, including a production one.
Well, if you want, then so be it: both are telling the truth, they are not wrong, and there is one more nuance here. Both wise men are sure that there is a solution and that it is the only one. It is a very important condition. But you have to find it yourself, because the problem doesn't mention it.)
Precision is the politeness of kings :)
Mathemat, Accepted!
ValS : - originally conceived numbers are different, or is it good to puzzle two identical numbers?
Based on these conditions, I got 2352 ways of solving a system of equations
a+c= c
a*b=d
Apparently the pundits were too hasty with their conclusion about the uniqueness of the solution. Here is just a piece of the alerter:
No, it shouldn't. Otherwise A would have said he knew the numbers.