Interesting Math Problems

[hawkfan8812]

flumper + necro = yawn

Well what do you know about anything Mr mayor poopy pants

I know that howie pays for sex and likes a bigger gal.

[Animal]

and i guess it was also part of your master plan of duping me that you chose to solve it using the incorrect method used by the majority of the people that try to solve it and get it wrong?

[necronomous]

and i guess it was also part of your master plan of duping me that you chose to solve it using the incorrect method used by the majority of the people that try to solve it and get it wrong?

I have know idea what method they choose. I just know your wording is insufficient.

[necronomous]

flumper + necro = yawn

Well what do you know about anything Mr mayor poopy pants

I know that howie pays for sex and likes a bigger gal.

Well yeah.

[Animal]

and i guess it was also part of your master plan of duping me that you chose to solve it using the incorrect method used by the majority of the people that try to solve it and get it wrong?

I have know idea what method they choose. I just know your wording is insufficient.

they chose the wrong method. just like you did. The did the math incorrectly, like you.

[necronomous]

and i guess it was also part of your master plan of duping me that you chose to solve it using the incorrect method used by the majority of the people that try to solve it and get it wrong?

I have know idea what method they choose. I just know your wording is insufficient.

they chose the wrong method. just like you did. The did the math incorrectly, like you.

And that also begs the question if you knew about the flaw in logic in the question, why would you fall for the dupe and act like bitch when you know the logic is flawed? You asked for the equal distribution of rocks. I answered that. Tje fact that the money isn't distributed evenly is on you for asking me to distribute the rocks equally and could result in a double meaning.
I didn't choose anything. I saw hypers answer. Saw how he answered it. Thought oh. Then I started thinking how silly the question was and that it's asking the wrong question to get to that answer, probably as a gotcha, and showed how your question was flawed in its asking. Then like here lately, you acted like a bitch because I think someone is stealing your tampons.
It's funny. You know ever since you mistakenly thought we disagreed about the vaccine and it's effectiveness, you act like you didn't use to agree with me on most things. Quoting most of my shit to throw in AHs face and shit. Then you didn't understand how people could have questions about the vaccine and I explained how it's possible, with ample evidence and then you accuse me of being anti vax and who knows what else. It's sad when I see good people go through hard times. Good luck with your shit man.

[Animal]

calm down.

[Animal]

the logic is not flawed. that's why Hyper was able to solve it. You used flawed logic to solve it and got the wrong answer, which is understandable since most people that aren't very good at logic problems get the same answer you did.

[necronomous]

the logic is not flawed. that's why Hyper was able to solve it. You used flawed logic to solve it and got the wrong answer, which is understandable since most people that aren't very good at logic problems get the same answer you did.

Like I said I didn't go to solve it. Like I said, I saw hypers answer that was already correct. But thats not what it's asking for. But you "knew" that. You just "went" with it.

[necronomous]

flumper + necro = yawn

×2

X3

[necronomous]

calm down.

I think this Is a time you should take your own advice. The covid shit seems to be a sensitive issue. Is it causing issues at your business or something?

[Animal]

the logic is not flawed. that's why Hyper was able to solve it. You used flawed logic to solve it and got the wrong answer, which is understandable since most people that aren't very good at logic problems get the same answer you did.

Like I said I didn't go to solve it. Like I said, I saw hypers answer that was already correct. But thats not what it's asking for. But you "knew" that. You just "went" with it.

i've always enjoyed the entertainment of watching guys like you try to solve logic problems and then hide behind the wording when you get it wrong.

[necronomous]

the logic is not flawed. that's why Hyper was able to solve it. You used flawed logic to solve it and got the wrong answer, which is understandable since most people that aren't very good at logic problems get the same answer you did.

Like I said I didn't go to solve it. Like I said, I saw hypers answer that was already correct. But thats not what it's asking for. But you "knew" that. You just "went" with it.

i've always enjoyed the entertainment of watching guys like you try to solve logic problems and then hide behind the wording when you get it wrong.

So, you're saying it didn't ask to separate the rocks evenly and then nothing else? You know the logical part of it.

[Animal]

Oh, I could point out that "How much dollars did Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?"

And that would be enough for 99% of the people that solve logic problems to understand that everything in the question should be considered an equitable split. Which is what you thought you were doing when you came up with your incorrect answer. But, you will argue now that it didn't specifically state in words that "the money each man paid should end up being equal". And that's your defense to cover up your mistake. It takes a special kind of moron to try this tactic to cover up his mistake, but then, here you are.

[necronomous]

Oh, I could point out that "How much dollars did Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?"

And that would be enough for 99% of the people that solve logic problems to understand that everything in the question should be considered an equitable split. Which is what you thought you were doing when you came up with your incorrect answer. But, you will argue now that it didn't specifically state in words that "the money each man paid should end up being equal". And that's your defense to cover up your mistake. It takes a special kind of moron to try this tactic to cover up his mistake, but then, here you are.

If that were true, why in my very next statement did I say how hyper solved it. Like I had done like I said and already saw how he got his answer and said as much?

[Animal]

Oh, I could point out that "How much dollars did Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?"

And that would be enough for 99% of the people that solve logic problems to understand that everything in the question should be considered an equitable split. Which is what you thought you were doing when you came up with your incorrect answer. But, you will argue now that it didn't specifically state in words that "the money each man paid should end up being equal". And that's your defense to cover up your mistake. It takes a special kind of moron to try this tactic to cover up his mistake, but then, here you are.

If that were true, why in my very next statement did I say how hyper solved it. Like I had done like I said and already saw how he got his answer and said as much?

because you were desperate to cover up the embarrassment of your mistake. You also asked if i had seen his answer, which clearly i had since i responded to him before you ever posted. But you never saw my reply congratulating him either, since that would have stopped you from posting your mistake.

no, you never saw his post or mine, and just put that big old mistake of yours out there for all to see. Mr Crawfish.

[necronomous]

Oh, I could point out that "How much dollars did Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?"

And that would be enough for 99% of the people that solve logic problems to understand that everything in the question should be considered an equitable split. Which is what you thought you were doing when you came up with your incorrect answer. But, you will argue now that it didn't specifically state in words that "the money each man paid should end up being equal". And that's your defense to cover up your mistake. It takes a special kind of moron to try this tactic to cover up his mistake, but then, here you are.

If that were true, why in my very next statement did I say how hyper solved it. Like I had done like I said and already saw how he got his answer and said as much?

because you were desperate to cover up the embarrassment of your mistake. You also asked if i had seen his answer, which clearly i had since i responded to him before you ever posted. But you never saw my reply congratulating him either, since that would have stopped you from posting your mistake.

no, you never saw his post or mine, and just put that big old mistake of yours out there for all to see. Mr Crawfish.

I had actually saw both. That's how I knew his was right. And I was wondering what the hell is 122.5 and 17.5 all about. And then I saw you whining about how no one answers your questions, so I gave it a read. Then I figured out hyper did it. And thought cool. Then I thought that's not what it asked for. Yadda yadda yadda, but ok simpy.

[Antknot]

the logic is not flawed. that's why Hyper was able to solve it. You used flawed logic to solve it and got the wrong answer, which is understandable since most people that aren't very good at logic problems get the same answer you did.

The wording was imprecise.

[Animal]

Three crackheads live under a bridge downtown. They agreed to buy new rocks of crack. Alan and Burt would go get the crack and Carl would stay to protect their shopping carts and boxes. Burt bought 75 rocks of crack behind the bus station and Alan bought 45 rocks. Once they got back to the bridge, they split the rocks equally. Carl paid $140 for the crack. How much dollars did
Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?

Assuming the split is also even for the rocks for each; then:

Each get 25 rocks from burt and 15 from Alan.

140/40= 3.50 each rock.

3.50x25= 87.50 for Burt
3.50x15= 52.50 for Alan

And yet that isn't the answer. And its your job to figure out why.

It is if my first statement is true. If you assume Burt gave 35 of his to reach 40 and Alan gave 5 then its 122.50, and 17.50. But you didn't clarify how they divided the rocks. So as I said, if it is distributed evenly.

Here's why your coverup is flawed, too.

In your original posting, before you realized you fucked up, you said "assuming the split is also even for the rocks for each of them; then:......"

Read that wording. Assuming the split "is also" even for the rocks for each of them. So you are assuming two things are even, which is why you used the word "also". There are only two things that could mean. Money and Crack. So you know going in that the money each spent had to be equal along with the amount of crack they ended up with. Which is exactly what the problem was asking, as anyone would know.

And then you proceeded to try to do that, in the wrong way. And got the wrong answer.

[stonedmegman]

That's pretty cheap crack. Can you hook a brother up?

[necronomous]

Three crackheads live under a bridge downtown. They agreed to buy new rocks of crack. Alan and Burt would go get the crack and Carl would stay to protect their shopping carts and boxes. Burt bought 75 rocks of crack behind the bus station and Alan bought 45 rocks. Once they got back to the bridge, they split the rocks equally. Carl paid $140 for the crack. How much dollars did
Burt and Alan get from that sum, considering they equally split the crack?

Assuming the split is also even for the rocks for each; then:

Each get 25 rocks from burt and 15 from Alan.

140/40= 3.50 each rock.

3.50x25= 87.50 for Burt
3.50x15= 52.50 for Alan

And yet that isn't the answer. And its your job to figure out why.

It is if my first statement is true. If you assume Burt gave 35 of his to reach 40 and Alan gave 5 then its 122.50, and 17.50. But you didn't clarify how they divided the rocks. So as I said, if it is distributed evenly.

Here's why your coverup is flawed, too.

In your original posting, before you realized you fucked up, you said "assuming the split is also even for the rocks for each of them; then:......"

Read that wording. Assuming the split "is also" even for the rocks for each of them. So you are assuming two things are even, which is why you used the word "also". There are only two things that could mean. Money and Crack. So you know going in that the money each spent had to be equal along with the amount of crack they ended up with. Which is exactly what the problem was asking, as anyone would know.

And then you proceeded to try to do that, in the wrong way. And got the wrong answer.

You think that's what that was? Ok. It wasn't, but it doesn't matter what I say, you just want to show how dumb I am. Whatever gets your rocks off man. I told you what happened. I'm telling you man, you need help.
At this point you're going to be thinking, haha I proved him wrong that's why he's saying this, he can't worm his way out. And to that I say, look at yourself while you're thinking that dude.
And by the way, it was in reference to hypers problem. That's where my head was so that's why I typed it like that. But that won't matter to you.

[Hyperv12]

They are distributed equally. And you are wrong.

So 122.5 and 17.5. But he got 35 from burt and 5 from Alan.

they each end up with the same amount of crack.

As they do in mine

The difference is that yours is not an equitable split of the money. Which is what makes yours wrong.

It is though. If you throw all the rocks in a pile you divy them up 15 each from Alan and 25 from burt. It's like burt and Alan traded theirs that they already paid for. So burt got paid for the 25 he paid for and Alan got the paid for the 15 he paid for. But even still you didn't say equitable split of money. You said if they equally split the crack. In my example they equally split the crack. So I satisfied your terms

Good luck selling that argument to the crackheads!

[necronomous]

So 122.5 and 17.5. But he got 35 from burt and 5 from Alan.

they each end up with the same amount of crack.

As they do in mine

The difference is that yours is not an equitable split of the money. Which is what makes yours wrong.

It is though. If you throw all the rocks in a pile you divy them up 15 each from Alan and 25 from burt. It's like burt and Alan traded theirs that they already paid for. So burt got paid for the 25 he paid for and Alan got the paid for the 15 he paid for. But even still you didn't say equitable split of money. You said if they equally split the crack. In my example they equally split the crack. So I satisfied your terms

Good luck selling that argument to the crackheads!

Oh no doubt. I give all credit to you for the correct answer.

[Animal]

So 122.5 and 17.5. But he got 35 from burt and 5 from Alan.

they each end up with the same amount of crack.

As they do in mine

The difference is that yours is not an equitable split of the money. Which is what makes yours wrong.

It is though. If you throw all the rocks in a pile you divy them up 15 each from Alan and 25 from burt. It's like burt and Alan traded theirs that they already paid for. So burt got paid for the 25 he paid for and Alan got the paid for the 15 he paid for. But even still you didn't say equitable split of money. You said if they equally split the crack. In my example they equally split the crack. So I satisfied your terms

Good luck selling that argument to the crackheads!

You did a great job solving that.

[Hyperv12]

they each end up with the same amount of crack.

As they do in mine

The difference is that yours is not an equitable split of the money. Which is what makes yours wrong.

It is though. If you throw all the rocks in a pile you divy them up 15 each from Alan and 25 from burt. It's like burt and Alan traded theirs that they already paid for. So burt got paid for the 25 he paid for and Alan got the paid for the 15 he paid for. But even still you didn't say equitable split of money. You said if they equally split the crack. In my example they equally split the crack. So I satisfied your terms

Good luck selling that argument to the crackheads!

You did a great job solving that.

As you guys over there say, ‘Even the sun shines on a dogs ass every once in a while’