Math Puzzles ala PlayTV

.BrianJM

Two puzzles from last night's show.
I, and probably umpteen others would like to know why we can't obtain the supplied solutions, so I'm posting them here in the hope that some fresh minds may provide a different viewpoint. We seem to be getting 'brainwashed' by their approach to numerical puzzles.

0823.numbers1=227.JPG

The supplied solution to this was 227

========================

0823.numbers2=149.JPG

The supplied answer to this was 149

Thankyou guys.

Addendum:
I should say that, although the caption says 'Add all the numbers in the picture', the presenter often said '...it's worth cracking the mathematical formula', '...it's precise so guessing is no good' etc.

Fremen

Typing the first problem into google exactly as it appears in the frame gives 225
result here.

Either they made a mistake calculating their own sum, or more likely, it's a trick question. I guess this question came from the same show.

I've added the first problem up, and using the correct rules for order, I've came up with 225 as an answer too.

.BrianJM

Usually a few of us try 'reverse engineering' the problem but these two are not so easy. Also we will need more of the same to check any system we devise. That could be problematic because it seems they monitor the forum.

Fremen

A couple of ideas that *didn't* work:

He says "add" all numbers in the picture. Taking this literally and adding them all up doesn't seem to work.

It occured to me that they might be using brackets implicitly line-by-line, so that you compute each line then compute the total. That doesn't work either.

Bah.

.BrianJM

Here's an idea one of the lads conjured up and my comment.

Fremen

It can't be coincidence that the operations are in the same order in both puzzles...

+,+,+,-,-,-,+,X,-,X,+,- etc...

Edit: That presenter's a smug prick. What I wouldn't give to kick him square in the nuts.

rjt

Fremen wrote: »

A couple of ideas that *didn't* work:

He says "add" all numbers in the picture. Taking this literally and adding them all up doesn't seem to work.

Looking at it this way, but taking into account negative numbers too (so the first term is 3, the last is -11) works in the first picture. My guess is they have a dozen or so different answers, each from a different interpretation of the question, and use different interpretations for different questions.

.BrianJM

Fremen wrote: »

I guess this question came from the same show.

Re the matchstick problem you mention above: I knew I had an image somewhere, albeit poor quality. It was actually part of a forgotten video clip but I include it here for completeness of that thread.

match.jpg

RoundTower

I think it's just a scam, they pick the number of calls they want to take for the question, take that amount of calls, and then tell someone they got it right. It's the same with any of their other problems I've seen, there are 100 "valid" answers.

Michael Collins

RoundTower wrote: »

I think it's just a scam, they pick the number of calls they want to take for the question, take that amount of calls, and then tell someone they got it right. It's the same with any of their other problems I've seen, there are 100 "valid" answers.

Yep. It has to be the worst example of TV ever (and I include Big Brother in that).

oneweb

Figured I'd continue this thread rather than start a new, don't shoot me!

Last night's playTV 'warm-up' which took over 2 hrs...

24+18x5-
(12-2)x7-
7x6+3x8-
(9x2)+5=?
Count!

=1838

Can any maths heads figure out how they reached that solution?

LeixlipRed

It's a complete scam. They guy who presents it I would murder if I came across him in the street.

.BrianJM

oneweb wrote: »

Figured I'd continue this thread rather than start a new, don't shoot me!

Last night's playTV 'warm-up' which took over 2 hrs...

24+18x5-
(12-2)x7-
7x6+3x8-
(9x2)+5=?
Count!

=1838

Can any maths heads figure out how they reached that solution?

It lasted the entire program (3hrs) and; surprise! nobody got it.
Roman numerals get used in these things so here's the pic.: https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/181083/90005.JPG

john west

the above people are right theres abou 10 different right answers depending on how u interprit the question! they should be givin jail those ****s who own that program! catchin out us innocent drunken broke irish ahhaha

stesh

john west wrote: »

the above people are right theres abou 10 different right answers depending on how u interprit the question! they should be givin jail those ****s who own that program! catchin out us innocent drunken broke irish ahhaha

They make 'chalk marks' that look suspiciously like digits, just to throw you.

Discovering PlayTV is the worst thing I've ever done. I end up staying up late marveling at how ridiculous it is.

Pherekydes

Much of Joe Duffy's show was taken up discussing this today.

Some so-called professor of Maths came on and said that the arithmetic expressions, like the ones referred to in the OP, were open to interpretation. :rolleyes:

I wonder was he paid by Play TV or TV3 to say that.

Others rang in and had stories of massive phone bills before they got through to the studio, and others mentioned unpaid prizes.

It's a total con, if you ask me.

LeixlipRed

Did you catch his name no? Or where he's based?

Pherekydes

'fraid not. It should be mentioned on the podcast.

He explicitly said 24+18*5 could be interpreted two different ways, depending on whether the multiplication or addition was carried out first.

Edit: his name is Des MacHale. The Play TV discussion starts about halfway through the podcast, for those interested. MacHale's contribution begins at about 37 minutes.

2nd edit: MacHale's start time.

3rd edit: left out the 'a' in Mac, though I'm sure the esteemed Professor would agree it's open to interpretation.

Fremen

Try telling him 2x + 3 is open to interpretation, see what he says...

nouveau_4.0

I love this show. Its a stupidity penalty. If your stupid enough to ring in you deserve to lose money.

farryakafaz

Actually, I know Professor McHale. He taught me Abstract Algebra in UCC last year. The reason why he would have said that the arithmetic is open to interpretation, is that you have to define a set of rules as to what you compute first ie do you do addition or multiplication first.
But you see, in primary school, you learn a certain order for computation, ie BOMDAS , where you do the computations in this order, Brackets Of Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction.
So the general population has a standardized order of computation.

But, you don't have to use this rules at all. You could make up your own set of rules, just as long as you don't end up with contradictions in your calculations.
So what McHale is saying, I think, is that playtv may not be following the BOMDAS rule. They don't have to. It's just that everybody else has learnt the BOMDAS rule. (gasps for breath):eek:.

Oh my Dawkins, I hope I interpreted his reasoning correctly.:D

.BrianJM

farryakafaz wrote: »

Actually, I know Professor McHale. He taught me Abstract Algebra in UCC last year. The reason why he would have said that the arithmetic is open to interpretation, is that you have to define a set of rules as to what you compute first ie do you do addition or multiplication first.
But you see, in primary school, you learn a certain order for computation, ie BOMDAS , where you do the computations in this order, Brackets Of Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction.
So the general population has a standardized order of computation.

But, you don't have to use this rules at all. You could make up your own set of rules, just as long as you don't end up with contradictions in your calculations.
So what McHale is saying, I think, is that playtv may not be following the BOMDAS rule. They don't have to. It's just that everybody else has learnt the BOMDAS rule. (gasps for breath):eek:.

Oh my Dawkins, I hope I interpreted his reasoning correctly.:D

When I was at school [50s&60s] we didn't have mnemonics like 'bomdas' to help. We just had to learn the stuff.
However, before 'bomdas' the order of evaluation was as it still is. Algebraic logic! Brackets are only needed for something out of sequence. eg (2+3)*4 but that doesn't matter in the case of playtv. In that particular type of puzzle you add the numbers, including the Latin ones. You do not evaluate the equation. The trick is in deciding which symbols to evaluate as Roman numbers. eg ( = C = 100 and 2 x 3 = 2+10+3.
Now take a few deep breaths and relax.

Fremen

farryakafaz wrote: »

Actually, I know Professor McHale. He taught me Abstract Algebra in UCC last year. The reason why he would have said that the arithmetic is open to interpretation, is that you have to define a set of rules as to what you compute first ie do you do addition or multiplication first.
But you see, in primary school, you learn a certain order for computation, ie BOMDAS , where you do the computations in this order, Brackets Of Multiplication Division Addition Subtraction.
So the general population has a standardized order of computation.

But, you don't have to use this rules at all. You could make up your own set of rules, just as long as you don't end up with contradictions in your calculations.
So what McHale is saying, I think, is that playtv may not be following the BOMDAS rule. They don't have to. It's just that everybody else has learnt the BOMDAS rule. (gasps for breath):eek:.

Oh my Dawkins, I hope I interpreted his reasoning correctly.:D

That's technically correct, but there's a standard approach that is agreed upon over all disciplines, and if you want to step outside that, you need to state that you are doing so.

They could of course argue that, say 3X5X7 = 52, without stating that they were doing arithmetic modulo 53. They would be correct, in a sense. On the other hand, if your bank tried that they'd be in pretty big trouble.

Even Ring/Field theory uses BOMDAS as standard. Otherwise the notation for ploynomials would be massivley awkward, as I pointed out above.

MoogPoo

Hi I was doing this triangles problem there.How many triangles are there? I got 91 and I'm pretty certain its right. The answer given was 85 though. Any ideas how they got it?

If you start with the triangle in the bottom left you get 1, when you add the second triangle you get two more, when you add the third you get 3 more etc. So you have 1+2+3+4+5+6+7, same on the ther side. Then on the top you'll have 1+2+3, same other side.
Then for the middle upside down triangle you get (1+2+3+4+5+6) and then add the main outline triangle and the top triangle...

so 2(1+2+3+4+5+6+7) + 2(1+2+3) +(1+2+3+4+5+6) +2 = 91.

There aren't any lines broken and tricks really visible and my dibgram is correct.

EDIT: p.s. the "so-called professor" Des MacHale is a legend!! What a man...

john west

how is tv3 allowed have this show on! its a f***in piss take! i mean fine the maths things are impossible but the easier ones is what i find annoyin i rang in once to find out u dont actually get thru even if u know which picture is different than all the rest! so now i know why the show makes money! cos of the hundred calls that ring in about the maths puzzles! about 2000 people tried to get thru and didnt! so wan**rs play tv get 1.50 min times 2000 and they never actuallly give out big money prize! so its time they were investigated! and th **** kicked out of all involved in making the show! whos with me ?? charliee bird come in we need ya to investigate ya useless C***!!!

LeixlipRed

john west wrote: »

how is tv3 allowed have this show on! its a f***in piss take! i mean fine the maths things are impossible but the easier ones is what i find annoyin i rang in once to find out u dont actually get thru even if u know which picture is different than all the rest! so now i know why the show makes money! cos of the hundred calls that ring in about the maths puzzles! about 2000 people tried to get thru and didnt! so wan**rs play tv get 1.50 min times 2000 and they never actuallly give out big money prize! so its time they were investigated! and th **** kicked out of all involved in making the show! whos with me ?? charliee bird come in we need ya to investigate ya useless C***!!!

More suited to an After Hours rant no?

d duffer

MoogPoo wrote: »

Hi I was doing this triangles problem there.How many triangles are there? I got 91 and I'm pretty certain its right. The answer given was 85 though. Any ideas how they got it?

If you start with the triangle in the bottom left you get 1, when you add the second triangle you get two more, when you add the third you get 3 more etc. So you have 1+2+3+4+5+6+7, same on the ther side. Then on the top you'll have 1+2+3, same other side.
Then for the middle upside down triangle you get (1+2+3+4+5+6) and then add the main outline triangle and the top triangle...

so 2(1+2+3+4+5+6+7) + 2(1+2+3) +(1+2+3+4+5+6) +2 = 91.

There aren't any lines broken and tricks really visible and my dibgram is correct.

EDIT: p.s. the "so-called professor" Des MacHale is a legend!! What a man...

The top triangle is not 2(1+2+3). It is only (1+2+3) due to the second and third individual segments on both sides being quadrilaterals. Hence the triangle of the second and third segments combined either side does not exist either. This is the extra six you had.

MoogPoo

oh yeah. oops.