Видео

I think the issue is most people assume that you can only shade the smaller squares. Not realizing that there is no reason why you cant. I personally thought of the 2nd solution. But yeah math really is harder written out because of the way one might interpret the meaning of what the question is asking. I do that sometimes when people are talking to me.

I got confused with angle vs corner, that's probably what the teach thought. There are 0 angles in a semi-circle and 2 corners to a semi-circle

I wasnt expecting it to be that easy

Took me 5 seconds for the first, the rest follow.

Just to share my thought process: the number has 16 zeroes, as in, 16 places to place a number excluding the most significant digit, which in this case it's 1 but it could be any. that means that at the very least, the answer needs to have half or more than half of 16 digits, so 8, which means A is out of the question. Now I thought out of the box: if I take a power of 10 and square it, which one gets me closer to the answer? B has 9 digits, so 10^8 because we need the 9th digit to be 1. So we get (10^8)2, which is 1 followed by 16 zeroes. Hmmmm, looks familiar, right? We don't even have to check the rest of the answers cause if it gives us more than 16 zeroes using the powers of 10, its gonna be a number too big.

This could have been a 30 second RUclips short

Fantastic ❤

interesting. i wanted to shade half. but not like that. i would shade a corner

I am a math teacher. At no point does he say these shapes are planar. On a convex surface, the sum of the measures of the angles of a triangle always sums to more than 180 degrees. The opposite is true for concave surfaces. This logic applies to all polygons.

Well done. I think you kind of skipped a little quickly over the y=x^n has n roots (fundamental thm). But otherwise nicely explained and visualized.

In my time of school i would probably have written 360, but now, i would mark the question as wrong (like if i was correcting the teacher's homework) and write a 10 pages long essay about circle, poligons and grammar to prove a point

PLEASE READ AND LET ME KNOW IF I'M WRONG T Y ! This is simple, The reason most people find it confusing is not the math, It's the fact that you use a word, "ALSO" as if you're looking for both a complete shaded square and a complete unshaded square at the same time, You can't. So in reality, If you're not going to use proper grammar, an adult shouldn't be able to give you a proper answer to this question!

that’s an octagon 👽🥄

Seeing the cool illusion: ❌ Vibing to the music: ✅

He says all of his hats are green. He either has no hats, and certainly none would be green or he has hats, of which at least one is not green.

😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮

"A meaningless truth"? Much like this meaningless video...

Still makes more sense than common core

Bruh it’s so easy thooooo i’m wayyy past grade 4

No, the question isn’t “fair” because I guarantee that the writer didn’t consider the difference between a circle’s central angle and the sum of interior angles of a polygon. The writer was simply regurgitating figures they had in front of them and expecting students to parrot the answers without thought. The answer ‘infinity’ should have been rewarded and the test should be rewritten to correctly test the students’ knowledge of geometry without ambiguity.

99 + 9/9

2:00 This second possibility immediately counters the definition of "lies" that you just gave... the second possibility would make it a misleading statement. This isn't a tricky logic puzzle, it's just poorly worded and lacking clear information. It's a bad 'question.'

From the Oxford English dictionary: price /prīs/ noun 1. The amount as of money or goods, asked for or given in exchange for something else. *2. The cost at which something is obtained.* _"believes that the price of success is hard work."_ 3. The cost of bribing someone. _"maintained that every person has a price."_ The price is, unambiguously, what the book costs. Anyone digging into technicalities about what the cost to the seller was, or sales tax that might have been added onto the price, or any number of other things that introduce ambiguity where it was CLEARLY not intended by the writer, is drastically overthinking things.

Omg I literally solved that in a second this DID NOT stump adults

Wouldn't it be 6/2(3)

By applying the standards of usage of the English language to mathematics, you are completely destroying the absolute foundations of mathematics. To use the term "inside angle" for two dimensional figures of defined sides, you are referring to the angle formed at the intersection of adjacent sides. To use the same term to refer to the rotation of a radial line in a circle as it sweeps from a point on the circle around the circle back to the initial point, corrupts the meaning of the term "inside angle". Since there are an infinite numbers of points in a circle, there are an infinite number of side and since the sum of the inside angles = (number of sides -2) times 180º, the sum of the inside angles = infinity minus 360º. So maybe infinity is NOT the correct answer but "infinity minus 360 degrees" is. And when you add to or subtract from infinity, you still result to infinity. So YES, the question was poorly written.

I would argue there are two possible answers, depending on perspective. Either the circle is considered a polygon with an infinite number of sides, in which case the answer is infinity, countable to be precise, or alternatively it has only one side, in which case there can be no interior angle, as an angle is defined by teo sides, thus the answer must be zero. A line is ambivalent in much the same way. Is it a one or two sided polygon? However the sum of the interior angles remain the same regardless. Going a step further down of course we have the point, which again can have no interior angles, thus the answers of zero. I suppose a circle could potentially be considered a two sided polygon, constructed with two doubly connected non straight lines, parallel where they meet, in which case you could argue that the answer is indeed 360 degrees, but then naturally this perspective would allow for any number of sides and amy answer being a multiple of 180, including infinity, excluding zero, or the case of 180 would be ambivalent Thus my initial conclusion, the answer must be infinity or zero, but in case if the ladder, a nire appropriate answer would be to state that a circle have no interior angles. Expecting an answer of 360 from someone who cannot be expected to make an argument for it, as i have attempted to do, is unreasonable to say the least, and is outright criminal to mark the answer of infinity as wrong. It is not. It is a matter of perspective, as the question is not clear, and in any case the answer of infinity suggests independent thought and an applaudable level of comprehension of the subject, whereas the answer of 360 does not. A teacher such as this is ni teachers at all. There is no excuse.

Thanks!

it took me 2 seconds to get this one

You seemed to make you explanation way more complicated than needed. My right brain solved it two different ways before you began your rocket science explaination😮

Me who understands the song

3:15 I like to think about the total angle sum increase from an n-gon to an n+1-gon by adding a new 180° "angle" on one of the edges. Now, this doesn't immediately explain why the sum is the same for all different n+1-gons, but if you're willing to assume that is constant, this is a quick way to understand.

Am I dululu or eveytime a new one comes out it brown 🤔

alright, circles are squares, got it.

This is a problem very reminiscent of that of the one from Meno written by Plato. To get half the area you connect the middle of the segments together.

My answer would be, "What's the point of this?" Is the person applying for a job where they reverse engineer someone else's inputs and outputs?

You are the error of assuming b to a whole number. It can be any number between 0 and "less than 10", including 0. Like 3.5.

It's annoying when the video thumbnail is not the same as the challenge. The video thumbnail implied there must be some operator between each nine, and so I worked on it a bit before clicking. Then I felt cheated. Wasted time.

3 corners to a triangle, an equilateral triangle has the same angles regardless of the side, how do you get 180 degrees? Youd not have a triangle, but a partially formed square

I mean just shade half the squares diagonally to form a diamond shape in the middle. you technically shaded half, just not the half they wanted

niceeeeee hahahhahaaaa

The solution is shade among the diagonals. The resulting square is diagonally located but squares dont need to be horizontal anf vertical lines all the time so technically still a square.

Arent they all 360 degrees?

Fun!

Assume the top middle point is the 12 on an analog clock. Draw a line from 12 to 3, 3 to 6, 6 to 9, and 9 to 12 turning the squares into pairs of triangles. Shade the outside triangles.

2009.5 is also correct answere. 2+0+0+9.5 = 11.5 years old 2021-2009.5 = 11.5 years old. And the rest are 2014 and 2009.

Impressive. If this is possible, perhaps Fermat really did have a legitimate proof of his last theorem?

Use this before it gets patched next update

Можно подвинуть пару правых прямых так, чтобы точка 7 перешла в 5, а 13 в 11. Получился прямоугольный треугольник (с неизвестными катетами), в который вписан квадрат, и вершина квадрата на гипотенузе делит её на отрезки 2 и 6. Надо найти площадь (ну, или сторону) квадрата. Это очень простая задача, где-то класса для 7. Так как вершина на гипотенузе лежит на биссектрисе прямого угла, то катеты относятся, как 1:3. Отсюда легко найти и катеты, и сторону квадрата, точнее, площадь 3,6

Shade a square in the middle (1/4 of every square)