Well, Sup Forums. Are you one of the 3%?
Well, Sup Forums. Are you one of the 3%?
Well the answer depends on what day it is.
The circle equals a triangle, the square equals a circle, so if the triangle equals a square, thus it equals a circle, so it equals a triangle. So, true?
9 2/3?
thinking about it like a baby toy "fit the shape into the shape" then no. circle does not fit into the triangle, and the square does not fit into the circle. however the triangle looks like it fits into the square
True, it's like portals, follow the arrows through the portals to return to the original shape
-1
How can 3% of the population solve a problem you have a 50% chance of getting right?
9 - 3/(1/3) + 1 = 9 - 9 + 1 = 1
winner.
3:(1/3)=3*(3/1)=9
9-9=0
0+1=1
Circle implies Triangle.
Square implies Circle.
Triangle implies Square.
because 97% pick the same answer
because you like it in the ass
Triangle implies Square.
Square implies Circle.
Circle implies Triangle.
>Triangle implies triangle.
circle -> triangle -> square
square -> circle -> triangle -> square
true
because you touch yourself at night
Only correct answer
it's false, half of everybody should be getting it right, even with a huge statistical anomaly 3 percent is incredibly unlikely.
no shit asshat
how can there be no shit if my hat is an ass, you're being unrealistic.
>Taking the bait
Did I take the bait too when I fucked your mom in the ass fag?
dank
9 8/9
...
4 2/3, simple math = Four and Two-thirds
Yeah it felt good too fag
>implying
you should get a job as a mother fucker, so that when people need to win an argument, they pay you to fuck their opponent's mother and take over the argument. checkmate.
Circle implies Triangle
Square implies Circle
Therefore, Triangle implies Square
FALSE
Affirming the consequent
Explanation
Square implies Circle implies Triangle
You have to go backwards to get Triangle implies Circle
You cannot do this and have it always be the case
Example
California is inside America
Sacramento is inside California
Therefore if you are in America you are in Sacramento
False
How the fuck is this a true or false question? How is this even a question?
I will be doing this
i'm pretty sure only statements can be true or false, there's no such thing as a true or false question
With the trips too...
no
"rectangles can be squares?" heres a true/false QUESTION
Your logic isn't sound, you used an isolated example regarding location.
matter contains atoms
Atoms contain protons
Therefore, protons contain matter
It's small matter, but it works.
that's a yes/no question
matter doesn't necessarily contain atoms. he was proving that it was not a sound argument, not that it is false.
A=B C=A,
C=A B=A,
C=B.
(A=circle B=triangle C=square)
because B and C both equal A, the statement
C=B.
or C-B=0
Squares can be rectangle, but Rectangles can't be squares
yeah but California dosnt equal sacramento... so no
It's obviously a form of rock, paper, scissors.
>circle beats triangle
>triangle beats square
>square beats circle
>matter doesn't necessarily contain atoms
Kill yourself
i would read it as false, coming from a programmers perspective.
square -> circle-> triangle
This is the first two columns, where square is the root object, circle inherits from the square class, triangle inherits from the circle class
you therefore cant have the square class inherit from the triangle class, or that would cause some kind of inheritances loop
fox example square -> circle -> triangle ->square -> circle -> triangle ->
>what is a subatomic particle
+1 actually because 9-(3/(1/3))+1 is how you solve it.
1/3=0.333333...
3/0.3333333...=9
9-9=0
0+1=1
1
does the set of all sets that don't contain themselves contain itself?
no
ur a fag
calm down there, Bertrand
Much harder
No retard
Its PEMDAS
Not PEMDSA
Addition before subtraction
Simple math? You are a simple retard you dumb bitch
/thread
If the question is about the statement then it's false because it's a 50/50 chance.
No decent mathematician would use the notation in this math problem. Using both an obelus and slash/vinculum for division, while forgoing the use of parentheses, is vague and imprecise. All of the following would be technically the same, in terms of the function of the operators:
x = 9 – 3 ÷ ⅓ + 1
x = 9 – 3 ÷ 1 / 3 + 1
x = 9 – 3 / 1 / 3 + 1
x = 9 – 3 ÷ 1 ÷ 3 + 1
x = 9 – 3 / 1 ÷ 3 + 1
So if notated properly, all should produce the same result. But since most people execute the order of operations that have equal priority from left to right, most of these are solved as "(3 / 1) / 3" instead of "3 / (1 / 3)". The exception is the one that notates ⅓ as a fraction, because some people see that as a separate unit instead of two separate operands with an operator between-- which is incorrect. A vinculum is an operator and "⅓" is not a number.
The problems with this problem are:
1. The use of different operators for the same type of operation
2. The lack or parentheses to indicate intended order of operations
3. The use of a vinculum to represent a basic fraction, which is entirely unnecessary-- "(1 / 3)" would have been much clearer and effectively the same.
So the reason that so many people that have issues solving this problem is because it has been created in a purposefully misleading way, by someone that should have used proper notation to avoid confusion (i.e. by someone who is not a mathematician).
>Toppest of Keks
Only because it feels huge in this hand