Fun! 80.
-
-
-
I got 38 which I think is correct, how do you get 80?
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Err, too many undefined variabkes to solve for
-
Nope, solvable
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
1. Remove the visual confusion to get 2+3+3×11 (easy) 2. Apply order of operations, multiplication first (had to look it up) 2+3+33=38
-
You had to look up order of operations?? You’ve been in management too long

- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dueling Occam's Razors? Given an arbitrary integer from 0 to 100, what's the simplest explanation for producing that integer as the answer? e.g. bunch of bananas = 4; clock = position of hour hand; visible polygon = 9, occluded polygon = 3. And we get ... 42!
-
Yeah, that’s a good term for it. 38 does seem like a point of maximal fit of some sort, but there’s consistent solutions that explain less by assuming less. Occam may not be the right aesthetic here. I’m now thinking Leibniz principle of sufficient reason: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.